OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

BRTISH MUSEUM.

Petition of the Trustees of the British Museum for grant in aid (King's Recommendation signified); referred to the Committee of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

STRIKES AT BOMBAY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Bombay mill strikers were fired on in January of this year; and how many casualties resulted among the Indian population?

The PRIME PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I am informed that before a settlement of the strike was reached the mob attacked a picket of military police accompanied by a magistrate, the magistrate and others of the party being struck by stones. On the crowd being ordered to disperse they displayed a defiant attitude; threats of firing had no effect on the mob, and the magistrate gave orders to disperse it by force. The sergeant and one private fired one round each, killing one rioter and seriously injuring another.
Subsequently, when, as the result of the Governor's mediation, concessions were made to the strikers and preparations made to start work at four or five mills, determined efforts to prevent this were made. At one mill large crowds stoned the military posts, forcibly entered the mill compound and stoned the cashier and two sepoys. A few rounds were fired, one mill hand being wounded in the thigh.
The Governor of Bombay has brought to my notice the admirable conduct during these disturbances of the military and police, who were on duty continuously for nearly a month, and were constantly engaged in minor conflicts with the mob. I feel sure that the House will agree that Sir George Lloyd was justified in this opinion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this conduct of the police and troops in Bombay is not a good example for the Punjab?

ARMY PENSIONS AND PAY.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 2.
asked the Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that British ex-warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who are pensioners of the Indian (Service) Departments receive their pre-War service pensions on the 15th of each month after the pensions become due, whereas all ex-warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the British Service receive their pre-War service pensions quarterly in advance; and whether he can apply to the former class of men the practice that prevails with regard to the latter class and thereby make a concession which would be greatly appreciated?

Mr. FISHER: The rules regarding pensions of warrant officers of Indian Army Departments are similar to those applicable to Departmental commissioned officers. Commissioned officers, both in the British and Indian Services, have their pensions paid in arrear, and I do not think that there is sufficient ground for altering the existing system in the case of Indian Departmental warrant officers. The pensions of these officers are paid on the 16th of each month up to the previous day, not to the last day of the preceding calendar month. The only non-commissioned officers whose pensions are paid by this Department are the few survivors of the East India Company's European Forces, and these have their pensions paid quarterly in advance, as in the case of the British Service.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 5.
asked when the new warrant for increasing the pensions of the retired officers of the Indian Army will be issued as promised by him to the deputation of officers in November last?

Mr. FISHER: The subject is still under consideration. It is hoped that a decision will be arrived at shortly, but the exact date cannot yet be stated.

Sir J. REMNANT: Are we likely to get it before the end of the month?

Mr. FISHER: I hope so.

Colonel YATE: 7.
asked what decision has been arrived at regarding the refund of the sums deducted from the pay of officers on the unemployed list of the Indian Army who served as censors and in such like capacities during the War on pay of less than £400 a year, so as to place them on the same footing as officers on the retired list?

Mr. FISHER: As I stated in answer to a question on the 16th December last, I am not prepared to reopen the arrangement regarding the pay of these officers which, as my hon and gallant Friend is aware, was made after full consideration in communication with the War Office.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MINISTERS.

Colonel YATE: 8.
asked whether the exclusion of Ministers from being sued in the High Courts in India, as provided for in the Government of India Act, will have the effect of differentiating the constitution of India from that of all the Dominions and of this country, and of denying to the peoples of India any means of re dress in the case of illegal proceedings by Ministers; and, if so, whether this position will be reconsidered?

Mr. FISHER: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Amendment made by means of Part II. of the Second Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1919, whereby Ministers appointed under that Act are brought within the scope of Section 110 of the Government of India Act, 1915–16. The Amendment referred to has no effect at all in five of the major provinces in India. In three provinces it has the effect of placing Ministers in the same legal position as that occupied by Governors and Lieut.-Governors of provinces and members of their Executive Councils. To a limited extent no doubt the position of Ministers in India will in this respect be different from that of Ministers in the Dominions, but it must be remembered that Ministers in India are not in all respects on the same footing as Ministers
in the Dominions. It is not the case that the Amendment will have the effect of denying to the people of India all means of redress in the case of illegal proceedings by Ministers. Proceedings may be taken against Ministers under other provisions of the Act. I may also remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the provisions of the section in question may be repealed or amended at any time by the Indian Legislature.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to institute an Amendment to put these Ministers on a proper and equal position with Ministers in any other part of the Empire?

Mr. FISHER: No, Sir. That is a matter expressly left to the Indian Legislature.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER OPERATIONS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 4.
asked the Secretary for India if our troops are making use of gas-shells or gas in any form against the tribes on the North-Western Frontier; and, if not, will he give the reason?

Mr. FISHER: The Government of India as at present advised do not propose to use gas except as a retaliation.

Sir B. FALLE: Does not my right hon. Friend think we are more than justified in using gas-shells against a savage enemy and so save the lives of our own men, when it is known that the enemy never takes prisoners and cuts up the wounded?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the settled policy that we are not going to adopt these German methods of barbarism, even against savages?

Mr. FISHER: I have nothing to add to what I have said.

AEROPLANES.

Mr. CAIRNS: 6.
asked on what date the Government of India made known their requirements for aeroplanes for military purposes; and on what date those requirements were supplied?

Mr. FISHER: In July and August, 1918, representations were made as to the need of additional air forces in India, but the requirements of the Western Front rendered it impossible to comply with the demand. In November, 1918, shortly
after the Armistice, Air Vice-Marshal Salmond proceeded to India to confer on the post war organisation and strength of the Royal Air Force in that country, but without waiting for a final decision on those points, additional air forces were demanded in January, 1919. It was accordingly arranged that additional air forces should be despatched to India, and that the squadrons already there should be re-equipped with up-to-date machines. Owing to the difficulty of providing suitable shipping, and to the shortage of personnel due to demobilisation, the reinforcements did not reach India until the late summer and autumn of 1919. These reinforcements fulfilled all requirements.

BRITISH SOLDIERS' PAPERS.

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India if something can be done to expedite the return from India of the papers of soldiers who have been returned to England and demobilised, and who have to wait three months or more before they can obtain payment of the war gratuity they have earned; and if he realises that a payment on account is of no use in really helping the men to obtain work or set up in a small way of business?

Mr. FISHER: The inconvenience caused by delay is fully realised, and special efforts have been and are being made to expedite the despatch to this country of the papers. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular case and will supply me with details enquiries will be made.

Sir A. FELL: Is it not the case that there are many cases, not only individual cases, who have actually had to borrow small sums, and will the right hon. Gentleman do something to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. FISHER: I realise the position and I can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible for the best will be done.

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS (NEWSPAPERS).

Mr. SPOOR: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Director of Public Instruction, Burma, has issued a circular under which no newspapers published in Burma or India, other than the "Times of India." the "Rangoon Gazette," and the "Rangoon Times,"
may be read in Government schools in Burma; if so, whether this involves the exclusion of the whole of the Native press; what are the reasons for the issue of this order; and whether he will cause instructions to be issued revoking the order and allow the same freedom as has existed hitherto in the circulation of Indian and Burmese papers in these schools?

Mr. FISHER: I understand from articles in the Press that orders have been issued prohibiting the entry into schools of certain newspapers. But I have no detailed information. I will communicate the hon. Member's inquiry to the Government of Burma.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (NON-BRAHMIN REPRESENTATION).

Sir J. D. REES: 11.
asked the Secretary for India whether he can give the House any information concerning the progress of negotiations in regard to the reservation of seats for non-Brahmins in provincial councils.

Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend has no doubt seen since he put down his question a Reuter's telegram in the "Times" of the 20th reporting the appointment of Lord Meston as arbitrator. I have no further information, and I would remind my hon. Friend that this question was remitted for settlement in India.

Colonel YATE: 12.
asked the Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to the telegram regarding the failure of the non-Brahmin negotiations at Madras on the subject of the distribution of seats according to the recommendation of the Joint Committee, published in the Press of 21st January; and will he give the text of his telegram to Lord Willingdon, the Governor of Madras, giving the latter private instructions that the reservation of seats for non-Brahmins should be ruled out of the discussion?

Mr. FISHER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on the 18th February to the hon. Member for Stafford. My right hon. Friend gave no instructions in the sense indicated.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question? Will he give the text of the Secretary of State's telegram?

Mr. FISHER: As I have already pointed out, the Secretary of State gave no such instructions.

Colonel YATE: Is the report in the Press entirely erroneous as to the statement made by Lord Willingdon?

Mr. FISHER: Before answering that I must see the report in the Press.

Mr. OMSBY-GORE: Does not that erroneous Press report allege that Lord Willingdon tried to interfere on his own initiative as the result of a telegram from the Secretary of State, and that in fact no such telegram was sent by the Secretary of State, and that though Lord Willingdon called this Conference together he was not present at the Conference, and made no communication to it whatsoever?

PURCHASE OF RICE.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: (by private notice)
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that (1) the Government of India are making a profit of 100 per cent. on rice purchased in India and Burma by the Indian Rice Commissioner and exported for consumption in Ceylon and to certain other neighbouring British Colonies; (2) that this is causing great hardship, especially to those rice-eating natives of the population in Ceylon who do not reside on estates, and who have to buy their rice in the open market; (3) that the Indian Government will make a profit of 55 million rupees on the total transactions in Ceylon; (4) that there has been a bumper rice crop in India, and that had the market been a free one, the price would have fallen to more normal levels; and, whether, in view of these circumstances he will cause an immediate communication to be sent to the Government of India with the object of inquiry into the whole matter?

Mr. FISHER: We are in communication with the Government of India on the whole subject, and it is hoped that a definite statement will be made very shortly.

Mr. MURRAY: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the facts I have stated are correct will he bring pressure to bear upon the Government of India to have the matter rectified?

Mr. FISHER: My information leads me to believe that the estimated profit is greatly exaggerated, but as I have
already pointed out, representations have been made to the Government of India, and we are now awaiting their reply.

Mr. MURRAY: If the estimated profit is exaggerated will the right hon. Gentleman say what the profit actually is: if it is not 55 million rupees, what is it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which notice should be given.

Mr. SPOOR: 3.
asked whether the reports made by the officers of the Central Information Department from time to time on the Jallianwall Bagh and other incidents in the Punjab disturbances were placed before the Hunter Committee, and whether the said officers were examined as witnesses before the Committee?

Mr. FISHER: The Hunter Committee has been supplied by the Governments in India with all the information which it desired, but I do not yet know precisely what documents were put before it. I believe that three officers of the Punjab Criminal Intelligence Department gave evidence. The Report will be presented at the earliest possible moment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there in this country a copy of the Reports made by the C.I.D. Central Information Department of the disturbances in the Punjab? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen them, and is the alleged implication of the police in the looting substantiated by them?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

RAILWAYS (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER).

Sir A. FELL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India why the Government does not build railway lines through the passes on the north-west frontier of India and keep armoured trains running through them, and so avoid the necessity of the long convoys which are being so often captured in the repeated wars which take place on the frontier; and if the expense of such railways would be saved by avoiding the cost of each of the frontier wars?

Mr. FISHER: One one case has occurred of a convoy being actually overwhelmed or captured in recent times on the north-west frontier. The main reason why construction of railways
through the passes has not hitherto been undertaken, is that the territory in question is not part of British India, but belongs to the independent tribesmen, who have generally been bitterly opposed to its being opened up.

Sir A. FELL: Is it not a fact that the real reason why this project has been blocked is that the Indian Government would not face the expense of the railways?

Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

NAVAL RESERVE.

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to the future of the Naval Reserve?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): As my Noble Friend knows, this is a very difficult question. I am afraid all I can say is that it is still under consideration. I will refer to it when making my statement on the Navy Estimates.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman bearing in mind that recruiting for the Territorial Army has already commenced, and that the position in reference to recruiting for the Naval Reserve will be greatly prejudiced unless there is an early decision?

Mr. LONG: I am not quite sure that the Noble Lord is right or that the competition which he anticipates will take place, but I quite appreciate the desirability of having an early decision.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will a decision be given?

Mr. LONG: I cannot say, but I expect about the middle of next month.

SCHOOLMASTERS.

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any statement can now be made with reference to any increase of pay for Naval school masters; if he is aware that, owing to the withdrawal of the children allowance, many of the schoolmasters are in a very serious financial position; whether the Admiralty has taken dockyard apprentices
as schoolmaster probationers; whether Naval schoolmasters have been appointed to train them; and, if so, whether any special grant will be made to the schoolmasters entrusted with such instruction?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As regards the first part of the question, I explained, in a reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth Central on Wednesday last, that representations regarding the rate of emoluments for schoolmasters have been made by the Admiralty to the Government. It is true that the Schoolmaster Branch, with all other branches, are affected by the withdrawal of children's allowances, and that the schoolmasters did not receive increases of pay granted to other officers on 1st May, 1919. The third part of the question is dealt with in another reply which I gave on Wednesday, of which I am sending my Noble Friend a copy. As regards the remainder of the question, the schoolmasters required to train schoolmaster probationers do this as part of the educational work of the establishment in which they are employed.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out no hope of the schoolmasters getting an increase of pay as has been given to other ranks in the Navy? Why have these men been kept out?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have made repersentations in the sense suggested by the Noble Lord.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it a fact that by a recent decision the Naval schoolmasters have been given a better status, but no increase in pay?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend should put that down. With regard to pay, we have made representations.

BLACK SEA FORCES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked whether there have been any casualties among the crews or landing parties from His Majesty's ships in the Black Sea during the recent fighting in South Russia; whether any of His Majesty's ships have received damage; and whether they are at present taking part in the operations in South Russia?

Mr. LONG: So far as is known by the Admiralty the reply to the first two parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, the operations of His Majesty's ships are confined to the protection, as necessary, of British and Allied personnel and interests.

MINEFIELDS (GULF OF FINLAND).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked whether the Soviet Government of Russia and neutral Governments, respectively, will be informed of the positions of the minefields laid by His Majesty's ships in the Gulf of Finland during 1919, in view of the present policy of the Allies of permitting trade with Soviet Russia; and whether any action will be taken by His Majesty's ships to prevent mine-sweeping operations by the Soviet Government after the ice clears from the Gulf of Finland?

Mr. LONG: We shall naturally take all necessary steps when the time comes to see that innocent traffic is not endangered.

POLAND (NAVAL MISSION).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the composition and size of the British Naval Missions and forces now in Poland and what services they are performing?

Mr. LONG: The composition and size of the British Naval Mission to Poland is, one commander, four other officers and nine ratings. There are no British naval forces in Poland. The duty of the Mission is to advise the Polish Government on maritime matters such as river police, wireless telegraphy, etc.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May we assume that no officers or men are serving as volunteers in the Polish naval forces?

Mr. LONG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to assume anything he likes. That is matter for himself. I could not offhand answer a question of that kind. Obviously there must be notice.

NAVAL OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).

Viscount CURZON: 22.
asked what is the reason for disregarding Recommendation
No. 3 of Admiral Halsey's Recommendation with reference to the pay of officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines?

Rear - Admiral ADAIR: 23.
asked whether, when the present rates of pay of naval officers was decided upon, they were intended to be such as could stand being charged the full civil rate of Income Tax, and whether they exceed those recommended by the Halsey Committee, which were based on the service rate of Income Tax?

Mr. LONG: It was considered by the Government that there was no justification for treating naval officers, in the matter of Income Tax, differently from the rest of the community, and it was therefore decided that tax at the ordinary civilian rate should be charged as from the beginning of the ensuing financial year. The rates of pay approved are substantially those recommended by the Halsey Committee, and were deemed adequate, notwithstanding the Committee's Report that any increase in the rate of Income Tax would necessitate in creased scales of pay.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that, owing to the present position of naval officers with regard to Income Tax, and the withdrawal of children's allowances, the increase of pay will all be absorbed? And why is there a differentiation as compared with officers in the Army?

Mr. LONG: I can only say that that is not my experience. I have had a good many figures before me, and they by no means confirm what my Noble Friend suggests. With regard to Income Tax, the matter has been under consideration, and I consulted many naval officers, who held strongly the view that, subject to their pay being put on a proper basis, they would prefer not to have special exemption with regard to Income Tax.

PROMOTION (SURGEON-CAPTAINS AND PAYMASTER-CAPTAINS).

Sir W. CHEYNE: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the proportion of surgeon-captains to surgeon-commanders is 1 to 19, of paymaster-captains to paymaster-commanders 1 to 11, of engineer-captains to engineer-commanders 1 to 9½, and of executive captains to executive commanders
5 to 9; whether he realises that this point is a serious matter for the Naval Medical Service and may markedly increase the difficulty of recruiting for that Service; whether any steps are being taken to remedy this disparity between the various branches of the Service and, at least, to place the surgeon-captains on the same basis as the paymaster and engineer-captains; and, if so, when the result will be announced?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As the answer to this question is a long one, perhaps the hon. Member will allow it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to:—
The proportions are approximately as stated, though the proportion of Surgeon-Captains to Surgeon-Commanders is more correctly 1 to 17.4. At the present time, however, there is a considerable surplus in the number of Surgeon-Commanders and a shortage in the junior ranks, so that normally the proportion of Surgeon-Commanders would be very much less. The question of the number of higher ranks in the Naval Medical Service has been under consideration, and it has been decided to increase the number of Surgeon Rear-Admirals to 6, and the number of Surgeon-Captains to 16, excluding one officer specially promoted to that rank for services during the War. The numbers will be further considered as necessity arises, dependent in all cases on the requirements of the Naval Service. It may be pointed out that the conditions of service of Medical Officers in the Royal Navy have been very appreciably improved as a result of the recommendations of the Jerram-Halsey Committee, as not only have the rates of pay been increased, but the period of service for promotion from Surgeon-Lieutenant to Surgeon Lieutenant-Commander has been reduced from 8 years to 6 years, and similarly that for promotion from Surgeon Lieutenant-Commander to Surgeon-Commander, a reduction of 4 years in all. The earlier advancement to Surgeon-Commander thus authorised has increased the apparent disparity of numbers in the higher ranks.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has any information as to the shipping captured in the Black Sea harbours by the Russian Soviet armies; and what
orders have been issued to officers commanding His Majesty's ships with regard to merchant ships under the Soviet flag proceeding to sea for purposes of peaceful trade and upon their lawful occasions?

Mr. LONG: In Odessa, the Russian light cruiser "Admiral Nakhimoff" has been captured by the Soviet army. There is no other authentic information. The matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member in the last part of his question is under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will some settlement be come to on this very important matter, and will freedom of trade for merchant ships be permitted in view of the recent declarations of the Government?

Mr. LONG: I told the hon. Gentleman, in answer to a previous question, that everything necessary to carry out the policy of the Government will be done, and at the proper time a Government announcement will be made.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Which policy is the right hon. Gentleman referring to? There have been six since the Armistice.

Mr. LONG: The statement made by the hon. Gentleman was referring to the policy of the Government. He apparently knew what that policy was. He did not talk about six policies. He talked about the policy, and he has had an answer to his question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the last policy announced yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal going to be carried out by H.M. ships with the Black Sea in spirit and in letter, with reference to peaceful merchant ships?

Mr. LONG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman excites himself about nothing. There is no alteration in policy. The idea of six policies seems to be on his brain. The Government announced their policy, and he knows it very well. Take, for instance, the evacuation of Batum, to which he referred. He knows quite well that the policy has not been altered. That cannot be done in a moment; it has to be carried out gradually. The Government is doing whatever is necessary in order to secure that peaceful ships are allowed to carry on trade, as we have undertaken that they shall.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us definitely, "Yes" or "No," has the blockade in the Black Sea ceased?

Mr. LONG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am afraid, has not studied the peculiarities of the case. My answer is that you cannot remove a blockade in a moment.

Captain BENN: Why not?

Mr. LONG: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take a little trouble to look into what a blockade of the Black Sea means, he will understand the peculiar conditions obtaining there now, which make it quite impossible to remove the blockade immediately. We are carrying out our policy in a straightforward way, consistently with our promise.

PETTY OFFICERS (UNIFORM).

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the new rig for petty officers is to be issued; and, having regard to the anxiety which exists in the Navy upon this subject, if he could state whether petty officers need any further supply themselves with the present uniform pending the expected alteration?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This question is still under consideration, and it is hoped to make an announcement at an early date.

SENIOR OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).

Commander KING: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any indication of Admiralty policy as to the retention or retirement of senior officers, in order that these officers may be in a position to forecast their future?

Mr. LONG: As regards flag officers, the lists have already been reduced to the numbers allowed in the pre-war establishment, allowing for officers borne supernumerary: and no further reduction is contemplated. With regard to captains, no steps are contemplated to effect reductions in numbers required, other than those laid down in the general rules for retirement, namely, retiring such officers as it is not intended to employ as flag officers on the active list.

UNEMPLOYED OFFICERS (PAY).

Commander KING: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a commander receives full pay for six months at any time that he is on the unemployed list, whereas a captain receives full pay pay when unemployed for six months only after first promotion, and therefore in subsequent periods receives less pay than when he held the lower rank; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to remove this anomaly?

Dr. MACNAMARA: A commander receives the full pay of his rank for the first six months of unemployed time. A captain does not receive the full pay of his rank at any time when unemployed. The position is that a captain, on promotion, if re-appointed in that rank, may receive 48s. a day during any period of unemployment within the first six months from the date of his promotion. If not reappointed in the higher rank, he may receive unemployed pay of 48s. a day for six months, if so long unemployed, from the date following the expiration of any full pay leave due on ceasing duty in his former appointment. At the end of this period he receives half-pay at the rate of 32s. 6d. a day.

NAVAL WELFARE COMMITTEE.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 32.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Admiral Jerram's Committee has considered the claims put forward by the Naval Welfare Committee last December; and, if so, when will the Report be available for publication

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Welfare Committee under the presidency of Admiral Jerram has considered the questions put forward by the Advisory Committee, and is about to present its Report.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 33.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is prepared to extend the Welfare Committee scheme to the three home ports, thus enabling the men to have a naval welfare committee at each port?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The present system includes a meeting of lower deck representatives at each Home Port as a preliminary to the inter-port meetings and the final meeting of the Committee in London. The future constitution of Welfare Committees will be considered when
the Board receives the report of the Committee which assembled in October, 1919. My. hon. Friend's suggestion will then be considered.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to say when the Committee's Report will be available to Members?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My Noble Friend had better put down a question on that.

NAVAL PRISON SERVICE.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 35.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the result of the petitions of the subordinate officers of the naval prison service which was under consideration last July?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The sanction of the Treasury has now been obtained to a revision of the emoluments of the subordinate staff employed in the Naval Prison at Bodmin and Naval Detention Quarters where civilian warders are still borne, and steps are being taken to promulgate the revised rates. These rates will be given effect as from the 1st April last, and will be subject to review in two years' time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

DISCHARGES (PORTSMOUTH).

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to state the number of men now weekly being discharged from the Portsmouth naval establishments; whether he is aware that there are upwards of 4,200 men unemployed in Portsmouth at the present time; whether, in consequence, any further discharges can be discontinued; and is he now in a position to state what is proposed to be done to carry out the recommendations of the Colwyn Committee, particularly in reference to Portsmouth?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The number now being discharged weekly is about forty-two. We are aware of, and regret, the amount of unemployment at Portsmouth; but we cannot retain men for whom we have no work. As regards the last part of the question, I may inform my hon. Friend that it is contemplated to allocate to Portsmouth a certain amount of work
for the machinery and boilers of an oiler, which it is intended to construct at Devonport in pursuance of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Colwyn Committee.

SHEERNESS (SENIORITY).

Mr. TYSON WILSON: 36.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a man who has served four and a half years in the Royal Engineers Civil Department and, on being discharged on reduction of staff, enters Sheerness Dockyard, is entitled to count the service in both Departments as seniority for establishment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In assessing seniority as a factor for determining selection for establishment in His Majesty's Dockyards, it is the policy of the Admiralty to take into account only the time rendered in their service. Such a man as the one referred to in my hon. Friend's question would, however, be eligible for consideration with others for establishment in vacancies as they may occur, subject to compliance with the Regulations as to age, etc.; and as he appears already to have served in another Government Department, allowance would be made for the time so served in determining his eligibility in respect of age, up to the actual age of fifty.

Mr. W. THORNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the men are discharged in accordance with seniority?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will let my hon. Friend have the whole of the Regulations in regard to it. We have gone into it with great care.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us why they have refused to allow merchant ships to be constructed in these docks, thus necessitating the discharge of these men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know whether my hon and gallant Friend referred to Portsmouth?

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Yes.

Dr. MACNAMARA: There was an offer of two merchant ships for that yard, but no slips are available. The possibility of building merchant ships elsewhere is still before us.

DOCKYARD TUGS (CREWS).

Major WHELER: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of allowing gratuities to the crews of those dockyard tugs which, though manned by civilians, performed similar work to those tugs which were manned by naval ratings, who are to receive gratuities?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Men who received civil rates of pay are definitely excluded from the Naval war gratuity, and it is not proposed to depart from this principle, which has been adopted after full consideration of the circumstances of the case.

Major WHELER: Is it not very hard on the crews of these tugs who were doing the same duty as naval ratings and exposed to the same dangers that just because they happen to be civilians they should be less well treated?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not because they are civilians. It is because they are receiving a civilian rate of pay, which is higher than the naval rate.

Major WHELER: 21.
asked whether it is intended to give war service medals to the crews of those dockyard tugs which, though manned by civilian crews, were employed in carrying out duties which in many cases brought them under the fire of enemy ships or batteries?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This matter has been and is still under consideration by the Admiralty. I am advised that an announcement may be anticipated at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

JUVENILE BRANCH ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to allegations as to the defects in the administration of juvenile employment exchanges; and whether he will now, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Education, take steps to remedy these defects?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I am aware that there are certain difficulties arising from the present arrangements between Local Education Authorities and Juvenile Departments of Employment Exchanges. I agree that the
existing administrative arrangements are in need of revision and I am at present in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education on the subject.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BEN-TINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a committee to inquire into this?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been considering that suggestion and I think it is very likely to be carried out.

Major HILLS: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to make any improvements in the pay and conditions of the staff of employment exchanges?

Sir R. HORNE: I have this matter under review, but any proposals to vary the pay and other conditions of service of the staff of the employment exchanges must, of course, be considered in the light of the Report which it is anticipated will shortly be made by the National Whitley Joint Council for the Civil Service with regard to the pay and conditions of the clerical grades of the Civil Service generally.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman gives increased pay, will he guarantee increased efficiency?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid it does not always follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN (TRAINING).

GRANTS FOR EDUCATION.

Major HILLS: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any, and, if so, how much of the £500,000 allotted for training women will be applied to assist women to complete their education interrupted by the War, in similar manner to the £6,000,000 allotted for men's education?

Sir R. HORNE: The Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment, to whom the sum of £600,000 referred to has been allocated from the National Relief Fund, are giving careful consideration to the problem of women whose education or training was interrupted in consequence of the War. The Committee are working in the closest co-operation with the heads of the women's services and other organisations concerned.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Is it the case that £6,000,000 has been allotted?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not find any statement in the question about £6,000,000?

Mr. MARRIOTT: Yes, there is.

Sir R. HORNE: Then I beg pardon, certainly.

Captain REDMOND: Has any of this been allocated to the training of women in Ireland?

Sir R. HORNE: The Committee which is dealing with the matter acts entirely on its own discretion. I have no doubt it will consider every proposal that comes before it.

Mr. DEVLIN: What department makes these proposals?

Sir R. HORNE: This matter is in a somewhat anomalous position. The fund is not in any way under my jurisdiction, nor is the committee. This particular committee of women, who were charged under previous funds with the duty of helping women whose interests were injured in the War, were awarded this sum by the National Relief Fund. They came to me and asked for my help, and I am giving my help, but I have no jurisdiction over anything they do, nor can I supervise their executive actions. They act according to their own discretion in the matter. I put the whole of my machinery at their disposal to give them help.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in the distribution of this money the needs of each country should be considered?

Sir R. HORNE: I think it is for those who hold that view to put their applications before the committee.

Captain REDMOND: Is there any representative of Irish women on this committee;

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot answer that from memory.

Major HILLS: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the House any details beyond those already published of the application of the £500,000 allotted for the training of women?

Sir R. HORNE: Full details of; the proposals contemplated by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment have already been published. I
understand that the Women's Committee hope within a few days to make a further announcement dealing with the method of application for individual assistance, and giving details of the procedure to be adopted in selecting applicants.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the figures of unemployment of members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers for the months of June, July, August, and December, 1919, and for the months of January and February, 1920?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of unemployed members of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, in branches within the United Kingdom, was approximately 2½ per cent. of the total membership in June, July and August, 1919, and 10 per cent. at the end of December, 1919, and January, 1920. The corresponding figure for February is not yet available. As the previous increase was due to the Moulders' Strike it is anticipated that the figures will now show a considerable decrease.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED MEN.

KING'S ROLL OF EMPLOYERS.

Captain LOSEBY: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to give an approximate date when the King's Roll of Employers of Disabled Men will be sub-divided into towns and districts and ready for publication?

Sir R. HORNE: As stated in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 18th February, the names in the first issue of the Roll have been arranged by counties. This issue is now in the hands of the printers, and will appear in the first or second week in March. Any question of a revision of the form of publication must therefore be deferred until a second edition is printed, as to which I cannot yet give an approximate date.

Captain LOSEBY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—I think he accepts it—if the Roll, as at present constituted, does not meet the purpose for which it was created, that is to say, letting the public generally know how to distinguish between those employers who are co-operating
with the Government and those who are not doing so?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not agree that it does not meet the purpose, but I agree that my hon and gallant Friend's suggestion was a better one than my own.

Captain LOSEBY: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour how many firms of employers have undertaken to co-operate with the Government in the matter of the employment of disabled ex-service men in accordance with His Majesty's appeal; and if ho is in a position to give a rough estimate of the number of firms under British management which, although in a position to do so, proved unwilling to cooperate with the State in the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of firms on the King's National Roll on 21st February was 11,700. I regret that I have no data on which to answer the latter part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL UNION OF ALLOTMENT HOLDERS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether his atttention has been directed to a resolution adopted at the recent annual congress of the National Union of Allotment Holders, a self-supporting body, protesting against the Agricultural Organisation Society, which is in receipt this year of £45,000 as a State subsidy, using taxpayers' money to make propaganda against the union; whether he is aware that the continued payment of this subsidy to the Agricultural Organisation Society is creating grave dissatisfaction among allotment holders; and whether he will take steps to discontinue the part of the subsidy stated to be given in respect of allotment work, seeing that the work of organising allotment holders has been, and is being, done by the National Union without recourse to public funds in such a manner as to have elicited the praise of the Agricultural Organisation Society?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not aware, however, of any such grave feeling of dissatisfaction among allotment holders generally
as the hon. Member refers to. I cannot accept the statement that the particular work for which the Agricultural Organisation Society is assisted by the Ministry is being done by any other body without assistance from the State, and I am not, therefore, prepared to take the steps suggested in the last part of the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the Agricultural Organisation Society is a rival organisation to the Allotment Holders' Society [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"], and that there is no reason why one Society should be assisted out of public funds in order to ran down the allotment holders of the country?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is quite true that the Agricultural Organisation Society receives support from the State for doing work which no other body can do, and is doing it very well, but I should like to add this, that a conference took place yesterday, presided over by an officer of the Ministry, with a view to trying to arrange some scheme whereby the two bodies could work together amicably. I hope that that conference will prove successful and that nothing will be said in this House in the meantime to prejudice that prospect.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will that mean a larger subsidy from the Exchequer than the £45,000 a year?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the increasing concern among allotment holders throughout the country in consequence of the great number of notices to quit allotments; whether his attention has been directed to a resolution adopted at the recent annual congress of the National Union of Allotment Holders protesting strongly against the evictions of holders, and asking him to set up a committee to hold a public inquiry into the serious position which is arising in regard to this matter; and what action he proposes to take?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been asked to answer this question. A number of allotment holders are receiving notice to quit land which was used temporarily for allotment purposes during the War, but in the large majority of cases the notices have been rendered necessary by the fact that the land is required for housing by Local Authorities, or for building by
private owners. Building land cannot be retained permanently for allotments owing to its high capital value, but the Local Authorities possess ample powers under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1919, to provide alternative land for the dispossessed allotment holders wherever such land exists. I have received a copy of the resolution referred to in the second part of the question, but in view of the fact that the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, was passed as recently as the 19th August last, I do not consider it necessary to take action of the kind suggested.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that land suitable for allotments cannot possibly be got at any price which the allotment holders can pay under these Acts, and will he take steps to see that they are supplied with land as cheap as they have been using hitherto?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I am not aware of that, because if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the Act of last Session he will find that by the most drastic and summary procedure land can be compulsorily hired at agricultural rents. I think that very often demands are made by local authorities for fresh legislation before they have put into operation the legislation which is already available.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is prepared to make a statement as to his policy in regard to the specific case of the Wan-stead Flats allotments; is he prepared to bring in a Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

INCREASE OF RENT (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1919.

Colonel ASHLEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the hardship which will be, caused to ex-service men and others by the expiration on 1st July of the Increase of Bent (Amendment) Act, 1919, he will bring in legislation to prolong its validity till the other Rent Acts of 1915 and 1919 expire, namely 25th March, 1921?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee on the 18th of February.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that the Committee which has been appointed, and which is investigating the whole of this question, will report in time for legislation to be brought in to continue the Act of last year till March, 1921, if necessary?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The object for which the Committee was appointed was to consider what steps were possible to meet the very contingency to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. We cannot do more than that.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is he aware that landlords are now giving ten days' notice for people to quit or buy their houses?

LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (REGULATIONS AND ORDERS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can see his way to circulate to Members of this House copies of all Regulations and Orders as and when issued to local authorities under the provisions of the two Housing Acts of 1919, in order that they may be able to follow the local administration of these Acts?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I will arrange for copies of Regulations and Orders to be circulated to Members of the Housing Group, and any other Members who signify their desire to receive them.

MEMORANDA.

Mr. SWAN: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether, for the convenience of the public, he will arrange for the General Housing Memoranda to be placed on sale at His Majesty's Stationery Offices at the same time as they are despatched to local authorities instead of some days or weeks later?

Dr. ADDISON: I am in communication with His Majesty's Stationery Office with a view to arranging that the memoranda referred to are available for the public as soon as possible after dispatch to the local authorities.

TRADE UNION ACTION.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 65.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to a letter written by a large firm of builders had contractors, and published by a daily newspaper on the 19th instant, which in effect states that, owing to the action of certain trades unions, their building of cottages has been seriously delayed and in some cases entirely stopped; and, if so, what action does he propose to take?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to answer this question. My attention has been drawn to the statements made by the firms in question to the effect that, owing to the action of certain trade unions, there has been refusal to erect houses which have been constructed in the firm's works under a system whereby the men receive a bonus on output. I am in communication with the firm with a view to obtaining particulars of the cases in which workpeople have refused to erect houses, so that the matter may be further examined.
I may add that for some time the Government have had under consideration, as part of the general question of the urgent need for increasing production, especially in connection with the erection of houses, the question of the advantage to the community of arrangements whereby workpeople are placed upon systems of payment by results, and it is proposed to set up a Committee to enquire into, and report upon, the whole matter.

EJECTMENT ORDEER, WOKING.

Mr. CAIRNS: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a Mrs. Handridge, against whom an ejectment order was granted at the Woking Police Court on the 21st January, to come into operation at the expiration of the month; whether he is aware that this woman is a soldier's widow with children, and is unable to obtain other accommodation; and whether he can take any action in the matter?

Dr. ADDISON: This particular case has not been brought to my notice, but the granting or refusing of orders of ejectment is a matter for the Courts; and if the Court is satisfied that, having regard to the provisions of those Acts, an
order should be made, I have no power to intervene.

SKILLED WORKERS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 73.
asked the Minister of Health how many men in the building trade are at present out of employment: how many skilled and unskilled workers are still in the Army; and, in view of the fact that the employment of the unskilled depends on the employment of the skilled workers, what steps will the Government take to bring back into the industry skilled workers from the Army and from other occupations into which they were driven by the uncertain character of the trade before the War?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to answer this question. The number of men on the live register of the Exchanges as belonging to the building trades on 13th February was 25,000, of whom about half were skilled men and half labourers. The Noble Lord will appreciate that these men include a large proportion of the least able workers and exist in small numbers spread over the whole country. While there is a large unsatisfied demand for building labour of every kind, it is more difficult now than at any time to shift the man to the place where he is wanted owing to the lack of accommodation.
No precise information is available with regard to the number of building trade operatives still in the Army, but this number is now inappreciable. The remainder due for demobilisation will be released within a short period.
The general question of the recruitment of operatives for the building trades (including, I understand, that of the measures which may be practicable for bringing back into the industry skilled workmen who left the industry before or during the War) is under consideration by the Resettlement Committee appointed by the Building Trades Joint Industrial Council, and I am informed that this Committee will shortly make its report, which will receive the immediate and careful consideration of the Government.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman put himself into communication with the War Office and really find out the number of bricklayers and other men connected with the building trade in
the Army; and see whether that class of men cannot be released at once?

Sir R. HORNE: I have done that repeatedly, and I am in a position to assure my hon. Friend that—though I cannot give the exact numbers now—there were very few men of the building trade left in the Army.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of bringing skilled men back into the building trade is to devise some scheme of insuring them against unemployment and broken time?

Sir R. HORNE: I hope that will be one of the results of the measure which I am moving to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CONFERENCE.

TURKEY.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when was the telegram sent to Admiral de Robeck announcing the decision of the Peace Conference not to put an end to Turkish rule in Constantinople; and when was that decision arrived at?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The telegram to Admiral de Robeck was sent on the evening of February 16th. The decision of the Peace Conference was arrived at on the previous day.

Lord R. CECIL: That was Monday, the same day the question was asked in the House.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether at Question time of the day on which this despatch was sent to Admiral de Robeck any intimation, suggestion, or even hint was given to the House of Commons of what the decision of the Government was?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as I know, the decision to which I referred was only arrived at in the afternoon of the 16th. Therefore it could not by any possibility have been announced to the House of Commons before the following day.

Mr. DEVLIN: Were your minds made up at the time you were addressing the House of Commons?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not addressing the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTER SATURDAY.

Mr. SPENCER: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the intention of the Government to advise His Majesty to make Easter Saturday a bank holiday?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. DONALD: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the conditions in the regulations for the examination in April under the reconstruction scheme; what is the age limit for ex-service men: and whether it is the intention of the Government to make all the temporary clerks at present employed under the Minister of Labour, irrespective of age, permanent officials?

Sir R. HORNE: The examination to be held in April for Clerkships in the Employment Department of the Ministry of Labour is limited to ex-service men between the ages of 19 and 25—i.e., candidates must have been born on or after 23rd April. 1895, and on or before 22nd April, 1901. The remainder of the conditions prescribed for this examination are set forth in the leaflet issued by the Civil Service Commissioners, a copy of which will be forwarded to my hon. Friend As regards the second part of the question, there is no present intention to make all the temporary clerks now employed in the Ministry of Labour permanent officials.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES, LAND'S END DISTRICT.

Mr. W. THORNE: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the townships and villages around St. Just and Pendeen, in the Land's End district, the rate of, wages is the lowest in England, and through the inaccessible position of these centres the cost of living is greatly increased by transport charges from the nearest railway or port centre, and that coal in these villages is about 4s. per cwt., and very difficult to obtain even at that; and whether he will cause local inquiries to be made as to wages earned and cost of living, and collect and publish a few selected family budgets of the inhabitants in this particular area?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that wages in the Land's End district are relatively low and that the price of coal is high On the other hand, it would appear that, taken on the whole, the cost of living in that district is not above the general average. I doubt whether the results of an inquiry such as the hon. Member suggests would be of sufficient significance to justify the expense which would be involved, but I will consider whether this district can be included within the scope of any future general inquiry into wages and cost of living.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

RE-SETTLEMENT GRANT.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour how many applications have been received for grants from the Civil Liabilities Department; how many claims have been met; and how many are still under consideration?

Sir R. HORNE: The total number of applications which have been received for grants from the Civil Liabilities Department since its inception up to and including 14th February, 1920, is 641,937, of which 473,937 were received under the 1916 scheme and 168,000 under the resettlement scheme. The number of grants made is 365,353. The number of applications awaiting consideration is 10,572. The balance represent "nil" grants and withdrawn applications. It is to be noted that of the 10.572 still under consideration, 5.353 were received in the week ending 14th February. The total amount paid out by the Department under the. 1916 scheme is £9,552,000, and under the resettlement scheme £1,576,300.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the delay, amounting to several months, in settling claims by the Civil Liabilities Department: and whether steps are being taken to hasten decisions with regard to grants for re-starting pre-war businesses?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that for a variety of reasons delay has occurred in settling claims in this Department in the past, but the machinery has been entirely reorganised and applications are now-being dealt with expeditiously.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND (TRAINING).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 61.
asked the Minister of Health the actual amount of money spent annually by Poor Law authorities on the training of the blind; whether there is sufficient factory accommodation provided for those already trained: and whether steps are to be taken to provide the necessary accommodation whereby those already trained, and in training, may be afforded the means of earning their own livelihood?

Dr. ADDISON: It is not possible to give the figure as to the expenditure of Poor Law authorities on the training of the blind asked for by the hon. Member. No separate records are kept by the authorities in question. As regards factory accommodation, there is a shortage, and proposals are now under consideration with a view to taking steps towards making good the present deficiency.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROADS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. SWAN: 63.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that rural district councils have no representatives on the Roads Advisory Committee, and if he will consider the importance of such a representative being appointed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this Question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Seven oaks on February 12th.

CHINLEY ISOLATION HOSPITAL (DEATH RATE).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 66.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the death rate at the Chinley Isolation Hospital was 55 per cent. during the period 24th to 29th November, 1919; what was the reason why this high death rate took place; whether three boys, aged nine, seven, and five years, respectively, died within the dates referred to, all members of the same family, after anti-toxin treatment; whether the cause of these deaths has been investigated and the anti-toxin in use at the time stated compounded for analysis as to its purity and with what result; whether two of the
cases referred to were out of bed one hour before death; and whether the third case, admitted for observation only, died from an overdose of anti-toxin?

Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that during the period mentioned the number of patients in the Chinley Isolation Hospital was 24, of whom 12 were cases of diphtheria, and that during the same period the number of deaths in the hospital was four, in each case from diphtheria. These fatal cases included the three boys referred to by the hon. Member.
The facts as to these cases, together with the local incidence of diphtheria in the neighbourhood, have been fully investigated by one of the Medical Officers of the Ministry as well as by the County and local Medical Officers. They are of opinion that the high mortality was due to the malignant character of the disease, and to the fact that those in charge of the cases before admission to the hospital had failed to administer diphtheria anti-toxin. When the cases were admitted to hospital they were all in an advanced stage of the disease; and, although anti-toxin was at once administered, it was then too late to stay the progress of the disease. I am satisfied on the evidence that the administration of anti-toxin was in no way prejudicial or related to the fatal result, and that the treatment given to the cases after admission to hospital was in all respects adequate.

Oral Answers to Questions — STARVING CHILDREN, CENTRAL EUROPE (HOSPITALITY).

Colonel BURN: 67.
asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that the Bradford Council has rejected the motion for extending hospitality to the starving children of Central Europe; what steps does he intend to take in the event of other towns in this country Expressing willingness to receive alien children from the countries of our late enemies; (2) whether his attention has been called to the movement on foot to bring starving children from Central Europe to this country; and has any consideration been given to this proposal from the point of view of the public health and possible contagion?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I, before, those questions are answered,
ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the official religion of this country is still Christianity?

Dr. ADDISON: That has nothing to do with my answer. With regard to the Bradford Council, I have no information to the effect suggested in the question. Proposals of the kind referred to by the hon. Member have been brought to the attention of the Government and have been discussed between the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and the Ministry of Health. The necessity of safeguarding the health of the people in this country m the event of any such proposals being sanctioned and carried out has been very closely considered and the requisite steps thought out.

Colonel BURN: Docs not my right hon. Friend think it inadvisable that the children of enemy aliens should be brought to this country, and does he not think that any money required for their assistance should be spent or disbursed in their own country?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot say as to that. I have to consider whether adequate steps are taken to safeguard the health of the community, and that I have done.

Mr. RATCLIFFE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bradford Corporation, whilst refusing to accept 1,000 children to be domiciled in Bradford, voted £1,000 and opened a public subscription to be sent for the relief of the children in the country in which they are living, but that the question is not a fair suggestion of what has been done by the Bradford Corporation?

Dr. ADDISON: I believe that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN-MINING, DEVON AND CORNWALL (ROYALTIES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether metalliferous mines in Cornwall and Devon are rated to the local rates on the royalties annually paid to the landlords; and what approximately is the anual amount paid in royalty by the tin-mining industry of Cornwall and Devon?

Dr. ADDISON: Subject to various qualifications, into which the hon. Member will not expect me to enter in answer
to a question, the reply to the first part of the question is, broadly, in the affrmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that the amount assessed to Mineral Rights Duty in respect of tin mines is £33,420, and no doubt the bulk of this relates to Devon and Cornwall.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAMLEY BOARD OF GUARDIANS, LEEDS.

Mr. HURD: 70.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received any and, if so, what reply to his representations to the Bramley (Leeds) Board of Guardians regarding the allegation that they were dismissing four of their resident officers because they have had children born to them?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. The Guardians have rescinded the resolution determining the appointments of these officers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is still the official religion then.

Oral Answers to Questions — SANITARY INSPECTORS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has recently been drawn to the claims of ex-service men for appointment as sanitary inspectors under local authorities and other bodies; whether he is prepared directly, or in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, to prepare a list of the limited number of men who are discharged or demobilised soldiers, have been trained at colleges or other institutions at the expense of the Ministry of Labour, and have passed the examination of the Royal Sanitary Institute; and whether, if such a comparatively small list were prepared, he would be willing to circulate it among the local authorities of the country, in order to secure fully the preference for ex-service men, which is the policy of the Government in such matters?

Dr. ADDISON: I have this matter before me at the present time, and am conferring with the Ministry of Labour in regard to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EAST AFRICA.

NATIVE LABOUR.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 78
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the protests published by the bishops of British East Africa against a circular recently issued instructing administrative officials to exercise pressure upon the natives in order to force them to labour for private interests outside the reserves; whether he proposes taking any action in the matter;

(2) whether the circular issued in British East Africa instructs administrative officials to encourage labourers to work in the interests of private persons, including women and children; whether this circular was submitted to the Colonial Office before being issued; and, if not, whether he will give instructions for its withdrawal pending consideration by His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I have only just received a copy of the circular referred to in the Noble Lord's two questions. I will certainly give the matter my most careful consideration. I am not. however, prepared pending such consideration, and before ascertaining in what spirit the instructions have actually been carried out, to direct the withdrawal of the circular.
The representations of the bishops are directed mainly against the use of native chiefs and headmen to induce natives to work outside their reserves and against influence of this kind being used at all in the case of women and children. They recognise that in present circumstances a supply of labour is essential to the country and desirable in the interests of the natives, and they actually advocate the adoption of the principle of compulsion under certain safeguards.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was the issue of this circular inspired from home, from the Colonial Office, and can we have it laid upon the Table of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I quite under-circular was certainly not inspired from home. As I explained just now, I have only seen it within the last few days; but I will consider the question of laying it

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is a very grave departure from precedent, so far as our Colonial Administration is concerned, that any pressure should be put on the natives to work for private interests?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I quite understand the legitimate anxiety of the Noble Lord and other hon. Members of the House that no illegitimate pressure should be put on native chiefs which would cause them practically to force the natives to labour for private employers, but I should have thought it was quite in the interests of the natives and the country generally—

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: That they should be forced to go out!

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: And not unreasonable that it should be explained that they can labour for private employers so long as no force or illegitimate pressure is applied.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that this circular does bring pressure?

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what action, if any, has been taken by the Government with regard to the recommendations of the British East African Civil Service Commission and those of the special com missioner, Sir Alfred Lascelles, for improving the pay and pensions of Civil Service officers serving in that Protectorate?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Since the receipt of the recommendations mentioned, the matter has been the subject of close consideration with the Governors of the Protectorates in Eastern Africa. A complete scheme for the revision of salaries has been prepared, and is now being referred to the Treasury, whose sanction is required in the case of those Protectorates which are dependent on the Imperial Exchequer. The question of improving pensions is also in hand.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say whether, if an officer in the British East African civil
service dies at his post, even if he has served 30 years or more, his widow and family receive no pension whatever unless the widow declares herself to be absolutely destitute and, if she does so, that then she only receives such pension as an act of grace; whether the maximum, which she may thus receive is six months of her husband's rate of pay; and whether, if any officer dies after retirement, even though it be in the first year of his drawing his pension, that pension dies with him and his widow and children-receive absolutely nothing?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The present position is as stated in the hon. and gallant Member's question, but I hope that a Widows' and Orphans' Pension scheme for East Africa will be in operation in the near future. Vital statistics have been collected during a number of years, and are now in the hands of an actuary, who hopes to be able to submit a definite scheme in the course of the next few weeks.

RUPEE (VALUE).

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonics whether the recent decision of the Government to fix the value of the rupee in British East Africa will adversely affect the buying power of East African officials; if so, to what extent; will such officials continue to be paid at 15 rupees to the £ sterling; if not, what steps does the Government propose to take to insure officers retaining their present buying power on the salaries paid them; and will such steps be in addition to and not in substitution of any steps which it is proposed to take to carry out the recommendations for the improvement of officers' pay and pensions?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: During the gradual appreciation of the Indian rupee the practice of issuing sterling salaries locally at 15 rupees to the pound has been continued as a temporary arrangement, in view of the fact that the cost of living, as reckoned in rupees, remained unchanged. Future arrangements are under consideration, but the hon. and gallant Member need not fear that the reforms contemplated in the pay of the East African service will be rendered illusory by cutting down in rupees the nominal increase in sterling pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any guarantees, official or unofficial, have been given to Poland in regard to support from the Allies in the event of attack by the Russian Re-public; and whether we have made it clear that if Poland refuses to make peace with Russia it is at her own risk?

The ADDITIONAL UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given by the Prime Minister on the 19th instant, and to the official statement concerning the proceedings of the Peace Conference issued yesterday and published in to-day's Press.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Will the promised protection to the Baltic States be granted to the Kuban Republic under the recent decision of the Allied Council?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to show that the alleged atrocities committed by the Serbians in Montenegro have been exaggerated in this country; and whether Count de Salis, in his Report, has stated that the majority of people in Montenegro prefer fusion with Jugo-Slavia rather than autonomy under a separate government or kingdom?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: His Majesty's Government are aware of allegations of the destruction of thousands of houses by fire in Montenegro and other similar stories. Such accounts as have been received from authentic sources show that the facts have been greatly exaggerated. I cannot divulge the contents of Count de Salis' confidential report; but I may say at once that I have reason to know that, in Count de Salis' opinion, the majority of the people in Montenegro prefer fusion with Jugo-Slavia to autonomy under a separate kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

Major BARNES: 76.
asked if it is possible to make public the Regulations, if any, under which trade may be resumed with Russia?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No definite Regulations have as yet been made as regards the conditions under which commercial relations may be resumed with Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Major BARNES: 77.
asked if the Council of the League of Nations will consider the question of making Constantinople the headquarters of the League?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Council of the League of Nations is not under the Foreign Office. Presumably, however, it will await the conclusion of peace with Turkey before considering the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.S. "PATRICIA."

Mr. MARRIOTT: (by private notice)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether alarmist rumours have reached this country as to the seaworthiness of the s.s. "Patricia," now outward bound from England to Bombay, and if so, whether he can make a statement to relieve the anxiety of those who have relatives on board?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): I have not heard of rumours of unseaworthiness. The vessel was thoroughly surveyed by Board of Trade surveyors before she sailed and was granted a passenger certificate. This is only given when the vessel is, in the opinion of the surveyors, fit in every respect for the intended service.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether or not there has been exceptional delay on the voyage to Marseilles?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, Sir; I do happen to know a good deal about the "Patricia" from a private letter from passengers who landed at Marseilles. She is pretty crowded. She was taken far out into the Atlantic on the outward voyage to keep clear of the Bay. The
people on board were not perhaps very comfortable. But there does not seem to be any doubt as to the seaworthiness of the vessel.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Were any passengers put ashore at Marseilles in consequence of the supposed unseaworthiness of the vessel?

Sir A. GEDDES: Well, Sir, that point is really answered by what I have said. I have not heard any rumours of unseaworthiness.

Mr. W. THORNE: If it is found that the ship in question is unseaworthy, will you prosecute the owners—the Government or the owners, whichever it be?

Sir A. GEDDES: The vessel is being run by the Government.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Thorne).

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING COMMITTEES.

Ordered, That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—[Mr. John William Wilson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee, "That, in the case of the Huddersfield Corporation (Lands), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:"—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolution agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NOTICES OF MOTION.

PORTS OF LONDON AND LIVERPOOL (CONGESTION).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to congestion in the ports of London and Liverpoool and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. George Terrell.]

TAXATION OF WORKMEN AND PIECEWORKERS.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the incidence of taxation that affects workmen and piece-workers and to move a Resolution.—[Sir Park Goff.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL,

"to provide for the better government of Ireland," presented by the PRIME MINISTER; supported by Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Long, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

Mr. DEVLIN: Can we have some explanation of this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is merely the presentation of the Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Horne): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It has been thought advisable in regard to this Bill that the Standing Order should be suspended in order to allow a discussion after eleven o'clock to-night. I hope, however, that we shall be able to dispense with any discussion at that period of the evening, and that we may be able to get over the ground between now and a quarter past eight when Private Motions come on. The suspension of the Standing Orders has been moved as a precautionary measure to allow hon. Members, who really desire it, to take further part in the discussion, if the time which has already been allotted does not suffice.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Does that mean that the Debate will go on after eleven o'clock?

Sir R. HORNE: It will, if hon. Members wish it, I do not, however, anticipate that that will be likely, but an opportunity will be afforded if hon. Members desire it. The problem of unemployment is one of the most difficult questions which confront the country, and I think I may also say one of the most important. Unemployment forms a tragedy in the life of the workman, and at all times it fills his mind with anxiety. Those who have had experience of distress can furnish us with many bitter recollections. The fear of unemployment is a cause of dis-peace and disquietude. If we could once get rid of the dread of unemployment which affects the minds of the working men of this country I am sure we should be able to create a new spirit of harmony and happiness. The fear of unemployment is a great impediment to the country's prosperity. There are masses of people in the country to-day who believe that the more they produce the less will be wanted, and conversely that the less they do the more employment will be afforded. That belief, as most of us know, is erroneous; but so long as the
fear of unemployment exists you will never succeed in completely eradicating it, and nothing would tend so much to increase output in the country, which is so urgently needed, as the creation of an assurance in the minds of the workpeople of this country that they would be kept free and would not drop into the lurch when the day of unemployment comes.
There are certain people who believe it is possible to devise a system in which there would be no unemployment. I wish I could not hold that view, but I confess I cannot share their optimism. I cannot forget that a bad season, a blight in the crop of one of our great raw materials, may cause dislocation in the trade of any country which no provision you can make beforehand can cope with. Coming nearer home, even a strike in one part of the country may throw out of employment the people who depend upon the raw material produced by those who are on strike, and we have recently had an example of that fact. Looking at the whole matter in a prudent and tactful light, the only thing you can do is to anticipate unemployment and make provision against it. What provision can we make? Insurance is one of the best known expedients, and it is upon the road of insurance that this country has already progressed.
4.0 p.m.
I hope the House will allow me for a moment or two to review the steps which have been taken, and the considerations which have been taken into account with regard to this great matter. Prior to the year 1911 there was no compulsory insurance in this country. You had a certain amount of voluntary insurance which had been created by the trade unions, but that only covers a very small portion of the working people of the country, and in many cases was given only upon special occasions like the breakdown of machinery or some other such dislocation in the work of a factory. In the early years of this century people who had been thinking about these matters had given great attention to the possibilities of State assurance. There were three general considerations which I think had been arrived at before the Act of 1911 was introduced. These three considerations were as follows: It appeared to people who had studied the problem, in the first place, that you must have compulsory insurance, and if
you do not have it compulsory, the result would be that only a great majority of the bad risks of the country would come in your scheme and that would ruin any scheme. In the second place, it appeared unnecessary that benefits should be given in proportion or at least in some degree of proportion to the amount of contribution. It is perfectly obvious, if you do not do that, that you are taking the risk of the character of the individual workman, and that is a risk which in the question of unemployment no scheme which could be set up could really work against. In the third place, it seemed necessary to set up a system of Employment Exchanges. That was obviously necessary for the reason that you had to have a system by which you could check the workman who said that employment was hot available. Accordingly, all thinking people who had been working on the subject had arrived at these three more or less definite views before 1911 as the foundation of any scheme. The 1911 Act was passed, and it was to some extent experimental. It dealt only with a selected number of the industries of the country. They were the building, the shipbuilding, and the engineering industries, taking these as large generic terms. There were good reasons for taking these industries to begin with. One was that they were exposed to some of the worst risks of unemployment. Secondly, because they had had that experience in the past they had adopted a certain amount of voluntary insurance in their Trade Unions which afforded data upon which you could build your scheme. It came into force in July, 1912, and the benefit began as from January, 1913. Each man had to pay a weekly contribution of 2½d., the employer also paid a contribution of 2½d. per week, and the. State added one-third of the joint contributions of the employer and workman. The benefit which was given was 7s. per week, and the same rate was applied to women as was applied to men. The rules which were laid down for working the scheme were, in general, based upon the three considerations which I have set forth. A man, in order to be qualified to receive the Unemployment Benefit, had to show that he was unemployed and that he had paid a certain number of contributions. Further, he was disqualified if he had left his work on his own accord, if he was on strike, or if he had refused suitable
employment when offered him by the Employment Exchanges. It was not left entirely to officials to determine whether the refusal of Unemployment Benefit was justified or not. He was enabled to appeal to a Court of Referees which was set up under the statute, and difficult questions on which parties disagreed were determined by an umpire as a final authority. That scheme of insurance covered 2,500,000 employés, of whom roughly 9,000 were women. Then we had the War, and in the course of the War—

Mr. J. E. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the total amount that was paid in the years to which he has made reference to the unemployed in this country?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that I cannot give the figures for the period to which I have referred, but, if the hon. Gentleman wishes it, I will give the figures from the beginning of the Act down to the present time, covering the period of the War. I have these figures, but not the figures for any shorter period. Probably the point of the hon. Gentleman depends as much upon the figures that I have as upon the figures for which he has asked. During the War a very large number of people came into industry, particularly women, who had never been in the occupations which they then adopted at any previous stage, and in considering the problems of reconstruction it was borne in upon everybody that there would be a large amount of unemployment immediately the War ceased, for which some provision ought to be made. Accordingly, in 1916, the unemployment insurance scheme was extended to a large number of other trades, particularly to munition workers and people working in the metal and chemical industries. That brought up the number of people insured to 4,000,000, and that was the figure at which unemployment insurance stood at the date of the Armistice. The number has slightly decreased since then, owing to the fact that a considerable number of people have gone right out of manual labour since then. Many women have given up the work that they previously did, and there has been a considerable shift in the working population. The result is that at the present time, giving the figures roughly, 3,750,000 are insured
under the 1911 and 1916 Acts, of whom 1,000,000 are women.
The experience which was gained in the working of the insurance schemes under those Acts is not one upon which you can base very much, because, as we all know, the period was entirely abnormal. It was estimated by the actuary who dealt with the matter originally that the figure of unemployment for which risk had to be taken was something like 8.6 per cent. In point of fact, before the War the figure only worked out at 4 per cent. In the beginning of the War it came down to 3 per cent., and at the end of the War it was something under 1 per cent. Therefore, you cannot build any great theory upon the experience of this entirely abnormal period. The amount paid out in benefit since the schemes were instituted is £1,380,000; I fancy that is the figure that my hon. Friend wants. There were, of course, the administration expenses, in addition, which, roughly, amounted to £700,000 in all. I do not pledge myself to that last figure; I think it is only a suggested figure. At any rate, the result of the working of that period was to enable us in December last year to raise the benefit, and the House will remember that it was increased from 7s. to 11s. per week at that time. There was a certain amount of accumulated funds at the disposal of the State, and advantage was taken of that fact to raise the amount of the benefit.
We now come down to the proposals which I am laying before the House. It has become obvious to everybody, I think, that insurance against unemployment must be much more widely extended than it has been in the past. The idea was to insure everybody against unemployment. As I have stated, there were only 3,750,000 out of all the workpeople of this country under the two previous insurance schemes. The proposals that we now make will bring the number insured up to about 12,000,000 of workpeople. That is making a very considerable advance upon what has been previously done. There are excepted from the scheme people engaged in agriculture and in domestic service. Of course, the reason for these exemptions really is that it is anticipated that protests would be made against the inclusion of either of these classes, because unemployment in them has always been at a much lower
figure than in the other industries of the country, and in making this advance we do not desire to raise any more complications than we can help. It seems to me that agricultural workers and domestic servants would be anxious to avoid the contributions in view of their greater immunity from the risks against which we are trying to guard. But we have provided in the Bill that we may by Order extend the benefits to any industry which desires them and which Parliament may regard as being entitled to be included. Accordingly, the machinery is there at any time to include people engaged in agriculture and domestic service if that is thought wise and proper.
In facing the problem afresh, there were two great questions to which we had to apply our minds. The first was: "Are you going to have a contributory or a non-contributory scheme?" The second was: "If you are going to bring in all the trades of the country, or the great majority, are you going to pool the resources of all and make one consolidated scheme?" On the first of these problems, we had at least the experience of the Out of Work Donation. Every-body knows that that was an emergency measure, but it was at least there as a guide or as a warning to Parliament. We came to the conclusion that the only possible scheme was one on a contributory basis. In the first place, any non-contributory scheme would impose a financial burden on the State, which at the present time I am perfectly sure the boldest and the most audacious would hesitate to face. In the second place, our experience of the Out of Work Donation scheme was not encouraging. Our Friends on the opposite side of the House constantly told us that it was a source of demoralisation of our people, and indeed we were not without experience that that accusation was entirely justified. In another aspect it was a scheme which was open to great abuse by employers. Very often that which keeps works running and makes employers take risks is the quite proper pressure of their workpeople, and the knowledge that unless they carry on they may lose them, and their workpeople may be cast into dire distress. A non-contributory scheme might induce an employer to work on short time when there ought not to be short time, or to take advantage of lapses in the industry
to play for safety rather than work his full machinery. Looked at from that point of view, it seems clear that the only basis upon which we can work is a contributory scheme. The second problem is how are we to deal with all the various trades which we are going to bring in? There is on this second point of view quite clearly a distinct issue. One question is are you going to make each industry carry its own burden of its own unemployed? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, all."] I hear a suggestion of "all" industries, but that really begs the question. Do you mean that each industry should include all its own or should all industries be lumped together? The question we have to consider is whether each industry should carry its own burden, and in what respect. Will you make responsible for unemployment insurance the employers and the employed who each take pride in their particular industry, and will you enable them to make arrangements which they think they can do better than anybody else to legislate for their own industry? They could work short time and assume certain risks by adopting various methods of organisation of ther own. They could adopt various devices which might not be possible under a State scheme, and that could only be done if they were left to themselves. We might have out some industries with that idea. The object of these schemes would be to prevent unemployment by those engaged in an industry, and, of course, that unemployment might in some cases be preventible.
But there is another way of looking at the inclusion of all industries as one, and that is, I take it, what my hon. Friend means who made the interruption just now. That is to take all trades together in a very practical sense. We must remember that all trades act and react upon each other. They are far more dependent upon each other than any of us, I think, realise, and you have great difficulty in laying down any line of demarkation between one industry and another, because many trades act upon each other and are interlocked one with the other. In the first operation under the Insurance Act of 1911, where you had to have a broad definition of these industries, it was found to be very difficult to form any line of demarkation, and no fewer than 2,500 questions have been put in connection with the delimitation of
various industries under that Act. There is, therefore, great difficulty in dealing with this solidarity of industries. You may have a strike in one industry which causes unemployment in another. You have these great industries, like wool and cotton, which are interdependent to a degree that is scarcely imaginable, and it is scarcely possible to draw a rigid line between the various industries of the country. What we have done in the present proposals is to combine both of those theories. We have recognised the solidarity of industry, of all industries by making them support each other. But on the other hand we have provided a scheme of contracting out which will enable an industry, if it thinks it can do better for itself than if it was under the general scheme, to provide a special scheme of its own.

Mr. SEXTON: But all must be under a scheme of some kind?

Sir R. HORNE: Every industry under the Act would have a scheme of some kind, as the hon. Member says. If any industry contracts-out we provide that it shall not be a narrow contracting-out. Any scheme of contracting-out would not have to apply to small groups or special sections of any industry. These would not be able to make a scheme for themselves. The contracting-out must be on a wide basis, and it must be such as would cover a genuine industry. You may take the leather or cotton trade; it would have to cover all that industry. That is our idea, that it should quite cover the whole industry, and that there should not be little groups taken out of an industry. They should not take away from an industry any adventitious parts of it which might be connected with it. But in a contracting-out scheme of that kind some qualification is necessary. It is obvious that contracting-out would be adopted by some industries because they calculated that they would have less than the average unemployment, and that is why they would rather support their own unemployed. They would have less risk, they would think, than the risks of the general trades of the country, and therefore the industry which contracts-out presumably thinks it would be better off. I think that is so obvious that I need not go deeply into it. But they would leave us in the general scheme the industries that had the greater risk. Accordingly,
what we say is that while the State gives one-third of the joint contributions under the general scheme, in the case of an industry which contracts-out, it will only give 10 per cent. of the joint contributions of the employer and workman. That is six-tenths of a penny. With regard to those which contract-out, it will be incumbent that the scheme proposed will adequately secure the benefits to the workpeople, and we, accordingly, provide that there must be a joint board of management, a joint insurance fund must be set up, and the accounts shall be subject to Government audit, and the whole machinery of its working shall be approved by the Ministry of Labour. I do not mean that all their actions and the contrivances which they may adopt shall be subject to approval in that way, but the general lines of the scheme shall be approved. Once you have got the machinery approved in that way, then the industry can regulate what has to be paid in the way of contributions or benefits. The scheme must cover all the people in the industry who will be bound to contribute, and the amount of the payment to the insured person as benefits must be decided. In that way you will have provisions in this Act when it is passed, so that there may be contracting-out, which were not in the original Act.
Some hon. Members may be inclined to ask, What about men transferred from one industry to another? That would be possible. It would be possible for a man who had genuinely taken his place in another industry to take his insurance against unemployment to that other industry. But you cannot be engaged in the wool trade and at the same time become a member of a cotton industry scheme. You may join a cotton trade scheme if your employment has changed into that industry. Similarly you can go back to the original scheme if you leave an industry which has contracted-out. This is one of the great features of the scheme we are now proposing, which differentiates it from the previous measures of insurance. We also provide that there may be opportunity for supplementary insurance. Questions might be asked, for instance, about the building trade and the occurrence of wet days. Under this measure we shall make it possible for the building industry to set up a supplemental scheme, to make provision against
that or any other special vicissitude of the industry, and from my point of view that is another advantage of the present scheme. I now come to the clauses which leave out certain industries from the Act. As I have already said we except from the Act agricultural workers and domestic servants, and there is another exception which, I know, interests my hon. Friend opposite, and that is that we do not apply the Bill to Ireland except in this sense, that everybody in Ireland who is insured under the old scheme will get additional benefits. He will get the new benefits instead of the old, but we do not add any further trades to those already insured.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he does not include Ireland?

Sir R. HORNE: I was just going to explain that. One of the reasons is so obvious that it is scarcely necessary that it should be stated. That is, that we are on the verge of discussing a measure for the better government of Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: What about the Education Bill?

Sir R. HORNE: I should have thought that if there was one topic upon which Irishmen might break their early teeth in the art of legislation, unemployment would be one. It is obvious to me that it would be a very effective criticism if it were said that, while we were bringing in a Home Rule Bill, which would allow the Irish to govern themselves, what was the use of, at the same time, providing in another measure for unemployment in a way which, perhaps, they would not want?

Mr. DEVLIN: That is exactly the case with the Irish Education Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: I think that on that point the Chief Secretary for Ireland has made an adequate statement, and I do not propose to spend time now in defending what he has said.

Mr. McGUFFIN: Why should Ireland be excepted in any way? Why should you make any exceptions?

Mr. DEVLIN: Because this Bill you are now going to except Ireland from is a good Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: This is the first time that I have seen Irishmen refusing a good
thing. As I have already said, the payments under the Insurance Act in Ireland will be increased from the present figure up to 15s. If Ireland would prefer to remain as it is I fancy we could easily arrange that, but I think that Irishmen have no desire to refuse what is offered. With regard to Ireland, the trades which are already insured will come under the new provision, but the main trade of Ireland is agriculture, which is not being legislated for in Great Britain under this Bill, and I do not think there is very much objection to that. But there is also machinery to include other trades who may wish to be included.
Let me take another example. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, there is the great linen trade which might be very properly put down for reconsideration upon application from the people involved, and be included within the purview of the Bill. I ought to add, my mind is not shut to it now. If in the course of the discussions on this matter it would appear that the linen trade should be added at the present time, I am very ready to consider it, but at least the power is there. Without going too much into detail, I may say there are several classes of people who are excepted from the Bill, such as non-manual workers with over £250 per year and employés of local bodies and of public authorities, railway servants, members of the police, and other people who have already statutory rights which give them the advantage of some form of insurance, but those exceptions will only apply where the Minister is satisfied that there is a system of insurance which adequately protects their rights. In addition to those, there are crews of fishing vessels who are paid by shares and as to whom there are many complications in regard to the particular way in which they are paid. The contributions which workmen will require to pay under our proposals are 3d. each per man per week. The House will remember that the contribution under the previous scheme was 2½d. per week, so there is a rise in that contribution of a halfpenny. Women will pay under this scheme 2½d., which is just the same sum they paid before. The State will give its quota of a third, which will be 2d. of the contributions I have described. Boys and girls will pay, respectively, 2d. and 1½d. each. The benefits to men will be 15s. per week, and
women 12s. per week, and to boys and girls 7s. 6d. and 6s. per week, respectively.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain this difference between men and women?

Sir R. HORNE: The difference in contribution is due to the fact that there is a difference in benefit, and the difference in benefit is due to the fact that there has been a well-recognised belief and practice in this country that in general the cost of living to a woman is less than to a man. That view may be contested by some, but so far as the practice is concerned, I think it is universally agreed that women, in the past at least whatever the future may hold for them, have in general succeeded in getting board and lodging at a cheaper rate than men.

Mr. SEDDON: The right hon. Gentleman said that the State would give a third of the contribution and perhaps he will explain.

Sir R. HORNE: The contribution, so far as the men are concerned, is 3d., and the employer pays 3d., and those together make 6d., and the State's contribution is a third of sixpence, that is the 2d. I mentioned.

Mr. SEDDON: What about women employed in a trade like the cotton trade?

Sir R. HORNE: With regard to women 5d. is the joint contribution of the employer and the woman. As to the amount of benefit which is given under the Act, it will probably be suggested that 15s. per week is too small for the man and that 12s. per week is too small for the woman. There is a great deal that could be said for that point of view, but we are faced with certain alternatives. Are you going to ask the workman to pay more in the way of contributions? If you are, it means that there is this position. Workmen already have to pay to health insurance, friendly societies, trade unions, and so on, and we took the view that they might very rightly protest against being assessed towards paying a higher sum than that we have arrived at. Again, if the workmen and the employers are to pay more the State would also have to pay more. Already the extra contribution required from the State under the present scheme is something like two and a half million
pounds. If you are going to give more for unemployment insurance in the way of benefit you will be compelled also to give more for health insurance in the way of benefit. You cannot say to a man who is not only not working, but is also ill, that he is not entitled to as much as a man who is only out of work. Accordingly, if you are going to raise the amount of the contribution which the State gives to the unemployed you will also require to raise the amount of the contribution which the State gives to a man in ill-health.

Mr. DAVISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what becomes of the funds accumulated during the War to the amount of nineteen and a half millions?

Sir R. HORNE: Even to give the sums of 15s. and 12s. benefits to which I have referred the most careful calculation of the Government actuaries, including every sum, and, taking all the various funds, including that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman into account, is that the benefit is as large as could be given. May I put the matter this way? In order to increase the benefit under unemployment insurance to 15s. the cost is 2½ millions, and to increase it to 20s. would cost another 2½ millions, and to increase the health insurance to 15s. would require 2½ millions, I am giving the figures roughly, and to increase that to 20s. would mean 2½ millions more. So that an increase upon the 15s. which we are proposing would involve the Government at present in an extra cost of something over ten millions. I say quite frankly to the House that that is a cost which at present we are not in a position to face. Our financial condition is well known. The calls on the Exchequer are very great, and we are cutting our coat according to our cloth and are doing our best in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Under our new proposals the qualifications for benefit and disqualifications are the same.
There is one question to which much attention has been directed and to which I ought to refer. There was an arrangement under the old Unemployment Act which we continue in the present measure, that the people who are working in the same shop as men who are on strike, although they themselves are not strikers, should not receive benefit. That
has been the subject of controversy and much misgiving, and it is a matter of a good deal of controversy at the present time. When the Act was passed, Parliament, at that time, arrived at the solution, which was embodied in that earlier Statute. I have considered the matter from every point of view, and I have come to the conclusion that we cannot make any better arrangement than the old one, and I will explain why. It is perfectly clear that you cannot give the benefits to the man on strike. If you are going to say that a man working in the same shop who is not on strike is, nevertheless, to get the benefit, how are you going to draw the line? Suppose a non-unionist is working alongside a trade unionist and does not want to go on strike, but is out of employment because others are on strike; is it suggested that we should have to pay him? There is equally good ground in logic and in proper feeling for saying so as for saying that some other man in some other part of the shop who did not wish to strike should obtain the benefit. Believe me, when you come to analyse the position, it is impossible to draw any hard and fast line, and therefore, finding things as they are, you must do the best you can. Previously Parliament came to the conclusion that the best scheme was that people who were in different departments or in other shops who were thrown out of work on account of a strike should be entitled to benefit, but that people in the same shop should not. I say frankly, having examined the question in all its applications, I cannot devise a better rule. I propose, accordingly, to stand by the rule which was previously made.
I should like to refer to some differences in the new proposals from the provisions of the old Act. Instead of the workman being entitled to one week's benefit for every five contributions, we provide that he should be entitled to one week's benefit for every six weeks' contributions. The reason for that is this, we are carrying into this scheme all the people who were previously insured under the old scheme. They in point of fact have only been paying 5d. instead of the 6d. which they will now be called on to pay. We are giving them credit for having paid 6d. all through the operation of the old scheme, and we are meeting that by providing that it will require six weeks' contributions to provide one week's benefit. Incidentally, this
arrangement will lead to great simplification because it means that one day's benefit is paid for each week's contribution, there being six days in the week-There is another important matter. Under the old Act it was provided that all trade unions which themselves paid in unemployment benefit a third of the amount which the State was prepared to pay should have the opportunity of distributing to its members the benefit which the State gave. There was no contribution by the State towards the expenses of the trade unions, and there was the qualification of the right on the part of the trade unions that they should have machinery for providing employment for men out of work. We carry on that provision, but we propose to provide that the trade unions shall receive five per cent. of the amount of benefit paid out in respect of administrative expenses. There have been many representations made to me and particularly by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress on this matter to the effect that the amount of five per cent. is inadequate, and upon being reasonably convinced that that is so, I am quite ready to admit to the House that I am quite prepared to consider whether it can be increased. On the other hand, there was a provision under Section 106 of the previous Act to the effect that trade unions which paid a certain amount of insurance benefit themselves should receive a subsidy from the State. That provision was made for the purpose of giving the non-insured societies some benefit for the work which they did in the way of insuring against unemployment. Now that all trades, practically speaking, are being insured, that provision drops out.
There are two other arrangements of the old Act which drop out. There was a grant to the employers of 3s. for every employee for whom they had paid forty-live weeks' contributions. That disappears entirely. The intention of the old Act was to give the employer an inducement to keep employment for his workmen as long as possible, but, in point of fact, the 3s. was no inducement at all, and accordingly we have been paying away a sum of money which gave the State no return, and which amounted to £118,000 per annum. We save that amount by abolishing that provision. Again, there was a provision that people over sixty who had little or no unemployment should
get a refund in proportion to the amount they had paid. We have abolished that also, because we do not regard it as germane to any proper scheme of insurance. Of course, we protect in their rights all the people who were already under that provision. There is a new provision that railway fares shall be advanced out of the Unemployment Fund to people who are out of employment, and who wish to take up employment elsewhere. The proposal is based upon the experience of the War. We are quite sure that the advance of railway fares is a wise expenditure, because it gives opportunity to a man to obtain employment which otherwise is not open to him in the place where he is, and the more you can increase his chance of employment, the more you benefit the Fund. Accordingly,' we propose to advance railway fares to such cases as these, and to remit half the amount of the fare.
I have gone over the main provisions of this measure, I hope, at not too great length. I should like, before I sit down, to refer to the position of approved societies. There has been considerable apprehension excited in the minds of some of the great representatives of the approved societies. They feared that this Bill was inimical to their interests. I took an opportunity of meeting with many of them, and I think I ascertained pretty clearly what their views were. They feared very greatly a provision which was in the original draft of the Bill to the effect that there should be, both for health and unemployment insurance, only one card kept, and one stamp put upon the card. They thought the effect of that would be to bring all their members, or would tend to bring their members, into approved societies which were managed by trade unions. I appreciated their point of view, and we entirely did away with that provision, and so relieved their anxiety. Their next apprehension was this. There are a certain number of trade unions—I think most trade unions now—which are resolved into approved societies for the purpose of working the Health Insurance Act. The attitude of the friendly societies was that if you have got unemployment insurance extended over the country in the degree which is provided by this Bill, there will be a great detraction from the friendly societies into trade unions, that their members will tend to leave the friendly
societies and take their health benefit and their unemployment benefit to the trade union. I think that fear is exaggerated, if not entirely groundless. At the present time, although you have trade unions managing approved societies within their own ranks, it is true to say that their approved societies outside the great friendly societies have scarcely been affected at all by those circumstances, and in such an approved society perhaps they have only 20 per cent. of their own members, and the great bulk of their members are still loyal to the old friendly societies with which they have been so long connected. I accordingly think the fear they express on that head really will not materialise.
But there is a third point of view they took. They said, "If you set up these great organisations of special schemes, and they begin to manage unemployment insurance, they will, in course of time, inevitably seek to be made approved societies under the Health Insurance Act, and that will tend to take away our members, or altogether overwhelm us." I think, perhaps, there is more ground for apprehension with regard to that matter, and, at the same time, I have had a consultation with the Minister of Health to see whether it is necessary to make any provision which will safeguard the position of friendly societies in this matter. We have all too much regard for the great work they have done for this country in the past to wish any detriment or injury to happen to them, and, accordingly, I think it is possible to consider the making of some safeguards for them in that respect.

Mr. JESSON: Do you propose to have two contributions, one for health and one for unemployment?

Sir R. HORNE: We propose to have two contributions, one for health and one for unemployment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to insert some such provision as in the National Health Insurance Act, 1911, Section 23, making it possible for societies to come in to administer unemployment benefit?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not quite certain how far the hon. Gentleman's question goes. We do not propose to make any
other provision than is in this Bill at the present time, which, according to our view, is adequate. There is a provision which allows trade unions to administer the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Fund under certain conditions, these conditions being, first, that they themselves pay a certain amount of insurance benefit. That provision, of course, means that they are going to take very great care that if there is employment for the man he shall take it, because they are not going on paying out contributions themselves if the man can get employment; and, secondly, that they have a machine whereby they can discover avenues of employment for the men. So that there is a complete scheme under this measure, in so far as we require it, for the purpose of having these benefits dispensed through organisations which are capable of doing the work and have had experience in doing it.
There is another point of view which has been put forward, and it gains expression in an Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). It looks at the whole problem from a reverse point of view from that which the friendly societies put. His proposed Amendment would draw entirely from the trade unions of the country the work they have hitherto performed and put it all in the hands of friendly societies. That in itself, according to my view, would be a very backward and retrograde step, but, in any case, I appeal to him with regard to the attitude which he has taken up towards this matter. He wants to avoid expense, and if there is any method by which you can avoid expense at the present time, undoubtedly the Government and the House ought to take it.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There are a great many trade unions which are already approved societies under the old Act.

Sir R. HORNE: The interjection of my hon. Friend is perfectly right, but in a measure, and in an organisation, which I do not think he sufficiently appreciates, where you have got the trade union as an approved society, you will find very often only a very small modicum of members are in that approved society. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I am quoting what I know. Secondly, a large number of people who are in their approved
society, which is quite a separate organisation within the trade union, come in entirely from the outside and have no connection with the trade union at all. They are only insured as any other individual joining any approved society would be, and the organisation of the trade union for approved society purposes is not at all of the character which my hon. Friend thinks. The foundation of my hon. Friend's proposal is to avoid expense. I assure the House that, so far from avoiding expense by any such proposal as this, you would only increase it. What you require to do in dealing with this question of unemployment, unless you are going to be swindled many times, is to have a check upon a man who is unemployed and says he cannot get employment. Therefore, if the approved societies were to take up this matter, they would have to set up a system by which they would be put in possession of the knowledge where employment was available all over the country, so as to be able to say that there was employment available for the man. If they are going to do that, they must set up a panel of employment exchanges. You would not get rid of the Government Exchanges, because, in point of fact, there would always be a large number of people who would not join either of the other societies, and accordingly these Employment Exchanges would have to be carried on, and you would have greatly increased expense. But, even under my hon. Friend's suggestion that the approved societies should use the Employment Exchange for the purpose of finding where there is employment, that would simply involve that, although the Employment Exchanges now do both the enquiry and the payment, you would have somebody who has to receive the information, go to somebody else to make the enquiry, and then come back and make the payment. That only increases the burden of expense. I speak with confidence in the matter, and although I appreciate the point of view in which the Amendment has been put down, I say this is the road to extravagance and to confusion rather than to saving and order.

Dr. MURRAY: Will the Act apply in such a case as this? In my own constituency there has been some labour trouble in a certain district, and, in consequence of that, Lord Leverhulme has
given instructions to dismiss all men belonging to that district from employment, and, as a result, 70 men are now dismissed and out of employment. Would the Act apply to people of that sort?

Sir R. HORNE: Undoubtedly it would apply, provided there are no complicating circumstances in the case, none of which the hon. Member puts before me. A man insured would get the benefit so long as he had not voluntarily gone on strike or refused other employment. For a lockout or dismissal he would be entitled to the benefit. This Bill does not pretend to be in any way an heroic measure. I do not say for a moment that it realises all, or even many, of the aspirations and hopes which many of us cherish in connection with this great subject. But I do claim for it that it raises the rampart against anxiety and despair a little higher, that it puts it upon a deeper and sounder foundation, and that it affords some shelter, and defence to all.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. CLYNES: The numerous friendly questions which have been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman during the course of his speech indicates on the whole a friendly passage for the Bill. I am certain the House feels grateful to him for having, in so brief a time, so lucidly explained the proposals within the pages of the Bill relating to so intricate and important a problem. On two points at least I can offer him, on behalf of the House as a whole, its congratulations. I congratulate him upon having to deal with this question at a time when there is such an improvement in what might be termed the public outlook in relation to this great economic and industrial subject, and I congratulate upon his own appreciation and the sympathy which he showed in regard to the dread which the workman has of a state of unemployment through no fault of his own, and I am certain that these two factors will be of considerable assistance in the different stages through which the measure will have to pass. But he must not conclude that we on this side of the House can allow it to go through without challenging and criticising some aspects of the principle upon which it is founded and without offering resistance to some detailed parts of the measure. On the whole, the different Clauses reveal to
us several welcome improvements in respect of the present day provision for unemployment benefit, not merely as to conditions and amount, but as to the administrative aspect of the question, which so intimately concerns the great trades unions. At the same time, we consider that this is a special opportunity which ought to be used to the full, and in no partial sense, for dealing with this, one of our greatest domestic problems, and the House will require a large measure of its time completely to handle this topic and cure, as far as possible, the evils of unemployment. The Prime Minister, as well as the Minister for Labour and other heads of the Government, have, within the past few months, repeatedly impressed upon the public mind the great national advantages which will accrue from easing the mind of the workman in regard to security of work, in regard to feeling that he is not going to be thrust out of employment even as the result of his own exertions, and I welcome therefore the opening part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because he fully appreciates the great losses which are suffered in regard to limited output, in regard to reduced production, merely because the workman has the fear that if he produces more his fate will be all the worse on that account.
I am certain that while many hon. Members cannot agree with us in our outlook on how this matter should be settled, they will agree with the sentiment that the best thing to do with unemployment is to prevent it, and not merely to insure against it, not merely to pay contributions to fortify men against a state of poverty through idleness. The best thing to do in respect of that state of unemployment is to make it as certain as possible that men shall be employed. We agree, of course, that it is not easy to translate that aspiration into a practical doctrine by means of statute and national regulations, but if it can be done it ought to be done, and I am not sure that we can see clearly whether it can be accomplished until it has been tried. Employers of labour in some quarters are looked upon by some working men and by some of their leaders as persons to be classed as the workman's enemy, denounced merely for being capitalists and upbraided for pursuing their calling in relation to the industries and
businesses of the country. I do not share that view. Employers of labour in the main, I suppose, pursue their interests and their businesses not primarily to find men work, but in order to fulfil the particular functions in life to which they were called. Incidentally they discharge what are under our existing economic conditions necessary duties, and while we might quarrel with them and complain of the unreasonable and, in many cases, most unfair exactions imposed upon industry and upon workmen by the inordinate profits which some employers make, yet we ought not to denounce employers as a class of extortioners, as a body of men who, because they are employers, should stand condemned in the eye of the workman. But in so far as employers fail to provide work for men who want it, they fall short of their broad function in our existing state, and so far as they cannot meet fully the demand for work it is proper for the State to intervene and guarantee the certainty of employment to men who are in need of it, and therein comes what the workmen call their "right to work," as indeed they cannot live under good and wholesome conditions unless it is by their labour. If, therefore, employers, through their conduct of present day industry, are not able at certain periods to provide men with the full opportunity of living which they require, it becomes the business and the duty of the State to so supplement and organise trade and businesses as to make work a certainty and not merely a chance.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the great sums of money which were paid out during recent periods of unemployment, and used the fact of that payment, I think not quite fairly, in relation to the point of view which we take as to what was its consequence. That payment was scarcely ever referred to as a benefit, or even as a right. It was usually referred to as a dole. It was stigmatised from the very commencement as something uncommon in the financial and industrial affairs of this country. The view we take with regard to all such payments is that it is not a good thing to give anyone something for nothing; that it is a far better thing, if you are going to pay a man something, to get something from him in exchange, and you cannot do it by pursuing that path of the dole on which the Government entered some fifteen
or sixteen months ago. That, again, throws us back upon the necessity of the Government making some marginal provision for securing the use of the services of men and women when they are thrown out of employment. In a time like this, when we are so much in arrears of work and when there is such a crying demand for a greater abundance of commodities and the needs of life, it is a pathetic thing that we are considering in this House, not the question of how to turn labour to a better account, but how to provide money in order that idle labour should be kept in being and able to provide some of the various necessities of life. This arrears of work is a thing that Statesmen and all members of this House of all parties mention upon platforms every week. It will not be cured, the difficulty will not be overcome, and we shall not catch up with the arrears of work by any such measure as this, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman, in the closing part of his speech, admitted that this measure cannot be described as heroic, as any attempt, I suppose, to cover the ground that needs to be covered in relation to this great economic problem. Rut I say for the Bill, that whilst, in my judgment, it does not proceed on the right lines in principle, in practice it is likely to go far to relieve the poverty and distress which would otherwise occur.
I should hope, as the right hon. Gentleman showed an open mind on some important points of detail, he will show himself able to consider whether the workman should not be relieved of the contribution demanded from him by the Bill. I know that will at once strike some employers of labour as a fanciful or extravagant claim to make, but perhaps they will listen to us, as they usually do, in order that our view should be stated. The workman already is paying a very large number of contributions to clubs of the ordinary kind. There is not a single contribution of that kind which is not a form of insurance of some sort against the common ills to which the masses of the poor are exposed. A workman must ensure himself for some payment in sickness, for meeting conditions of accident, and he may insure himself in a trade union in order that he may sell his labour collectively and thereby be enabled to get something like a reasonable living wage from the employers of labour.
All these contributions amount to a pretty considerable sum in the course of a week, and a few shillings to the average workman means usually a difference between a margin of comfort and a real condition of privation. A rich man pays his guineas to his club for reasons of pleasure and business, which I do not question at all, and the poor man pays his shillings to his club for essentials, merely to guarantee himself against conditions of distress which in his case are certain to occur. It would be the right thing to exact a fine or some payment of penalty from the workman for anything for which he is to blame, but the workman is not to blame for his state of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sometimes!"] I am speaking, of course, in general terms. I am not addressing myself to what may be an exceptional ease. The exceptional case under this measure or any other measure can usually be allocated. We do not desire that malingering of any kind should be encouraged, or that wrongdoing should be safeguarded by contributions either from industry or from the State.
Industry should be a joint concern. It should be the concern of the workmen, the concern of the employer, and the concern of the nation. Whatever may be said against the workmen, either individually or as a class, every man in this House will agree that workmen are indispensable to industry. Whoever else you can do without in connection with industry you cannot do without the workman. He is an absolutely indispensable factor in the life and commerce of the nation. But usually he is the man in industry kept by what he receives from it at just a bare subsistence level, and usually he is able to save little from his weekly Income, thereby finding himself to be the only one of the partners in industry in need of such a condition of insurance or protection as this Bill must afford. The view of hon. Members on this side of the House is that industry, and industries collectively, through the agency of the State, should be made responsible for such sums as are necessary to provide the, needful amount of insurance money which the unemployed workman has a right to look for day by day or week by week when, through no fault of his own, he is unemployed. The pensioner in receipt of his weekly pension
is not compelled to pay a contribution for it, nor is the pauper who may be maintained in one of our public institutions called upon to pay. Are you to treat the workman even worse than you treat the pensioner or the pauper? Are you to require the man who is giving day by day while he is employed, the best that is in him for the prosperity of business, and in addition to giving his work he is to give up half his wages in order that when out of employment he may be able to get the barest needs of existence to keep him in a fit state to be restored to his employment again?
There is a great deal in the view that this defect in England, this failure of industry to provide full and continuous work for men willing to labour, is a defect which ought not to impose a charge upon the workman, but which should be carried by the industry itself. That it should be carried by the industry is revealed fully in the daily newspapers. It is shown by the enormous profits that are accruing to trades and businesses of every kind. I reject altogether the plea that industry cannot bear a charge of this kind if it is placed upon it. The State also might clearly be called upon to consider whether it could bear an additional burden. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have felt the feebleness of the plea put forward that employers of labour and the State cannot be called upon to bear the burden which is behind the view I am now submitting to the House, and certain other consequences would follow if the line advocated on this side of the House were accepted. Exactly the same feeling was in his mind I thought when he touched upon the question of the amount of benefit. Here I want to make a little criticism on three or four points of detail within the cover of this measure. I think the right hon. Gentleman felt how weak his argument was when he urged us to accept the figure of 15s. as an adequate sum of weekly benefit under the Bill. We have all read the views put forward on behalf of the employers in connection with the investigations now proceeding respecting the transport workers and their wages. That view, officially formulated by the employers, placed the living wage of the workman under the existing condition of prices at £3 17s. 6d. at least.

Mr. SEXTON: That was the poverty line.

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, that is exactly the poverty line. That is not the level which we expect. A very much higher sum was argued from the Labour side in connection with that inquiry. I put this figure forward as representing the employers' standard of what is the lowest living wage necessary for the barest needs of existence under the existing condition of prices. If we are to place in the mind of the working man the feeling of being guaranteed against impoverishment, and if we are to take the working man away from the fear that doing his best and producing the most will not throw him out of work, we cannot do it by throwing him back upon 15s. a week during a state of idleness for which he is not to blame. The Labourers' unions, covering the very lowest paid section of workmen and workwomen in this country, have recently had to raise their dispute pay, lock-out, and unemployment benefit to a higher figure than 15s. The sum of 15s. does not represent at the moment anything more than 6s. of pre-war value. I urge the necessity, therefore, of an increase in the benefit which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted. I would also put to him the injustice which this Bill proposes to continue on workmen who are unemployed through no fault of their own in connection with recurring trade disputes. I do not think that the Labour Minister need fear that there will be any encouragement to disputes by doing justice to those who are the victims of such disputes. I agree that it would be improper for the State to pay any contributions or for industries to bear any burden in paying men who themselves are on strike, and who were the cause of the strike. The combatant should not have any support in that way from either the State or the employers of labour. But that is a different thing from the appeal which we are putting forward.
We say, "Give no support to the combatants in a strike, but give every support which the victims of the strike have a right to ask for." Working men, whether skilled or not, have a perfect right to press their claim for unemployment pay when they are unemployed, whatever be the cause, if the cause is not their own
fault. That surely is the right line of demarcation. If the workman himself is the cause, of if the workmen collectively are the cause of the state of unemployment, then the State is not to blame, the responsibility is the responsibility of the workmen and they must accept it. If they are not to blame, but are the victims of the action of other people, then surely they have a perfect right to press their claims under this Bill for unemployment pay. It is no answer to say that if right is done in this case it would have to be done in another. That is not an argument behind which I think the right hon. Gentleman would shelter. I can assure him that very great suffering was endured as a result of the recent moulders' strike by skilled workmen and labourers especially who were unemployed for periods of months during that prolonged struggle. These men have a sense of real wrong being done to them because of the discrimination between man and man under these conditions of pay. We shall have to press with all the power we can command for a reconsideration of this part of the Bill. We ask under this Act for nothing more than accuracy. It is not a privilege. It is not encouraging disputes. It means that men who are disabled from following their work through causes which are not of their own making ought to be ensured of unemployment benefit.
I was glad to hear, with regard to the administration expenses, that the view is accepted that the percentage which it is proposed to allow to trades unions for the provision of assistance under this Bill may be revised. I understood the Labour Minister to have an open mind, or at least that there was some margin in his mind on the subject, and that he was willing to hear arguments addressed to him as to whether the 5 per cent. is fair or not. In the meantime, I would say that this work which trade unions are doing is work of the highest national importance. It is State work. It is not work in the nature of administering a private charity. If you have the premises of trades unions and the services of the officials, and the use of all the apparatus and energy, which is symbolised by the word "organisation," placed at your disposal, and doing what is really State work, then there ought to be reasonable payment for the services so rendered. I very much dislike
the figure which is the line of demarcation in this Bill. It is proposed to exempt from the provisions all those non-manual workers whose wages or salaries are above £250. That figure is far too low. The class to be exempted is, in my judgment, a class which has endured exceptional suffering through the general disturbance of our economic arrangements during the last few years. A considerable number of the lower middle classes must have felt the privations that have fallen upon them and that have had to be endured as a result of the considerable increase in price. They have found themselves enjoying, as I think the term is, salaries which are seldom subject to any influences of ascendancy, and which have to be spent under conditions where the value of money is continually on the decrease. And this is the story shown by the post bag of Members of Parliament and the questions asked at meetings which we might attend in the constituencies by people who are subject to unemployment and in no sense guaranteed continuity of work. I think, therefore, that the level of this figure in the case of non-manual workers might very well be taken into sympathetic consideration during the further stages of this Bill.
Now as to the proposed exemptions. I have heard no adequate statement yet giving reasons for the exemption of agriculture as a whole in regard to insurance. I have reason to believe that those who have some claim to speak for agricultural workers have not asked for exemption. I know, as they know, that there are peculiar conditions attached to the industry which might be specially provided for without exempting it from the provisions of this measure, and therefore we ought to be told more fully why those engaged in agriculture are specifically mentioned as one of the two groups of employees in the country who are definitely exempted from the provisions of this measure. I accept the argument of my right hon. Friend as to what generally insurance means. It is a pooling of interest. That is why I think that, as it were high and low, the secure and those who are not secure might be on a more equal footing than is proposed by this Bill. I do not think that if an industry can come forward and say, "We are never out of work," it can give that as a reason for asking them not to pay in support of those
who are. If insurance means the pooling of risks for those who stand or fall by those risks, then it also means that the fortunate, who never have to undergo the loss and privations of unemployment, can well afford by the mere fact of being secure to pay their contribution towards the assistance of others. That is the real way in which you can make this a measure in which you can set up a sense of common communal interest in the sustenance of those who have to suffer because of the conditions of unemployment.
In these days the manual workers, as well as a large number of others, cannot chose their occupations. Their occupations are determined for them by a large number of circumstances over which they have no control. They are put to this, that or the other occupation according to chance, according to the discretion or judgment of their parents and many other causes, and they cannot choose for themselves, and their faculties and qualifications, also through no fault of their own, again are so different in different individuals that it ought not to be pleaded as a point in favour of exemption from sharing the misfortunes of others that particular trades or individuals are more fortunate. Therefore, I hope that during the progress of this Bill the mind of the Minister of Labour will be shown to be even more open than it was revealed this afternoon. He may expect that the strongest efforts will be made from this side to secure amendment of the measure. We shall on the whole accept it as something which will considerably more than double the number of persons who are now insured to some extent against unemployment. That is a provision which further increases the acknowledgment of the responsibility of the State towards the mass of workers, and so far as it goes in those directions, it is going in the right direction and therefore we shall have even his goodwill in any effort we may make to improve, both in principle and in detail, a Bill which, with all its limitations, we welcome from this side of the House.

Mr. DEVLIN: I would like to join with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) in extending warm congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Horne) for the human sympathy which he has manifested in presenting this measure to the House. I always thought that the right
hon. Gentleman was in the wrong place when he belonged to the party of reaction, because my experience of him is that when he comes to deal with any of those great human problems with which statesmen are now called on to deal, and to readjust them, he does at in the modern spirit, and he is inspired by the kindly human feeling which I think calls for the admiration even of his most violent political opponents, if he has any. Therefore, I rejoice to be able to congratulate him upon the introduction of this measure, and I agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) that, of all the great problems which Governments and Parliaments are called upon to solve, there is none which ought to call forth more genuine sympathy of all than the question of unemployment. There is no greater human tragedy than to find the gaunt spectre of unemployment haunting the homes of the poor. I do not think that society can offer a more indefensible conditions of affairs, with all our wisdom and all the promise of the ages, than to find men and women physically strong and powerful, anxious to work, desiring to preserve their dignity as citizens, and yet, through no fault of their own, denied the opportunity of earning their living. That is a condition of affairs which it is the passionate desire of every democrat to abolish, and, as my right hon. Friend has stated, even a Bill of this character, subject, and rightly subject, to much criticism—because it does not, in my judgment, deal adequately with this problem—is a measure which we ought to welcome, because anything good that comes from the Coalition we ought to accept.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that 15s. a week does not meet the case. Fifteen shillings a week now is only equal to 6s. before the War, and a pound a week, as he suggests, would not be generous, but might be a fair amount to give to a man out of employment during the time he is not engaged in work. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Horne) offers the excuse for not being more generous that he could not find any more money, and he told us that it would require £10,000,000 to carry out a suggestion of the character which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) has made, and ho asked where was it to be found? I will tell him where. It is very easy to withdraw the army of occupation from
Ireland. You are spending £10,000,000 a year in keeping an army there for keeping the peace. If you give it for relieving unemployment you will get more value for it. It would to far better to use this £10,000,000 a year for the purpose of dealing with this problem in a more satisfactory way, and satisfy the demands of labour put forward from every county and every industrial centre in the country. It would be far better to bring sunshine and light to the homes of the poor and to provide greater security from the caprice of industrial trouble and discontent by using the £10,000,000 for that purpose rather than for keeping in Ireland an army which ultimately you must withdraw. You will withdraw it for precisely the same reason as you have withdrawn the army from Russia. You were compelled to withdraw the army from Russia because the English people could not understand why they ought to pay for being instruments of carrying on a war with the Russians which was no concern of theirs. They had to do it in the end. We want you to do precisely the same thing in Ireland, to devote this £10,000,000 a year to this problem of unemployment, and in that way to devote it to a much better use. You would thus do two things, both good. You would establish liberty in Ireland and solve one of the most pressing human problems and effect a great change for the better in the minds and conditions and hearts of the people of England.
I did not rise for the purpose of saying what I have said. That was only my discursive preamble. I rose to ask why, if this Bill is such a remarkably good Bill—I believe it will be a good Bill when it is fashioned and changed and improved in Committee through the operations of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, with the sympathy and assistance of the right hon. Gentleman—why is it not applied to Ireland? Have we not unemployment in Ireland? I think that before I sit down I will show that we have. In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I ventured to interrupt him and ask why this Bill was not applied to Ireland? He said that they were going to introduce a Home Rule Bill for Ireland, and that in view of that we should not expect him to deal with this question of unemployment, which is a matter that affects Ireland, and with which Ireland can deal herself under Home Rule. The Coalition is made up
of two—or is it three?—parties—I forget which. It also speaks with two voices. The right hon. Gentleman will not give us this Unemployment Bill, which is a good Bill when it is improved in Committee. He will not give us that Bill which we want, but his Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who belongs to the same Cabinet as the right hon. Gentleman, is determined to give us an Education Bill which nobody wants. Ireland is not to be allowed to solve the education problem, to deal with the education of her children from the Irish standpoint and inspired by an Irish cultural spirit. That is going to be done by this House for Ireland. Education is not to be dealt with under the Home Rule scheme, which is to come before the country and which seems to be so glitteringly attractive before we see it—I hope it will present an equally picturesque appearance when we do see it in this House. But education is to be dealt with in this Parliament as a preliminary to the transference to Ireland of the right to govern herself, education which is the most vital thing in the whole life of a nation and which is the foundation of well-ordered citizenship.
I do not believe that the Home Rule Bill, which you have talked so much about, and which we never see, will pass at all. I. want to know now from the right hon. Gentleman—I know that this Bill is not his, I believe it is not his—why, while Ireland is being governed by this country, she is to be denied the advantage of this unemployment measure? Why is the gaunt spectre of unemployment, which haunts the homes of the poor in Ireland as well as in England, still to overshadow the people? I cannot understand the consistency of the position. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would reconcile his position with the position of the Chief Secretary. As he seems to me the only man of any commonsense in the Cabinet, the best thing he can do now is to tell the Cabinet to withdraw their Education Bill, which nobody wants, and to include Ireland within the provisions of this Unemployment Insurance Bill, which everybody in Ireland does want. I have endeavoured to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of including Ireland within this measure, and I do so because I am a representative of a great industrial community.

Mr. MOLES: Not the only one.

Mr. DEVLIN: I said that I am a representative of a great industrial community. It is a strange thing to me that while hon. Members from Ulster bring their pressure to bear on the Government to introduce an Education Bill which is bound to arouse prejudices and hatred in the country, they do not display a passionate enthusiasm for this Bill, which will affect their constituents as well as mine. It is not to their interest to look for social reform.

Mr. MOLES: Yes, it is.

Mr. DEVLIN: They are at the tail end of reaction in this country. Their purpose here is to force on an education Measure which will arouse fresh religious and political differences in the country, so that in the welter of all our potential discords they may perpetuate the old bad spirit on which they have prospered for the last century. I am entitled to speak on this question. I am a Member for Belfast, and the only one who has ever taken any interest in the working classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am inspired to address the House on this question because of my experiences. I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), that it is a most cruel thing to refuse unemployment allowances to persons who, through no fault of their own, are thrown out of employment because of a strike. I will give the House an instance. Only four or five years ago a great strike took place in the city of Belfast. The number of people involved was comparatively small; I think there were only four or five hundred—the tenters and the engineers and the skilled men in the spinning and weaving factories of Belfast. When they go on strike the whole of the mills stop, and in the case of the tenters' strike, nearly twelve thousand women were thrown out of employment for a period of seven or eight weeks. Not 80 per cent. of them belonged to any trade union. It is one of the accursed things of our Irish political system that, because of the discords existing politically, trade organisation is more inefficient there than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. SEXTON: It is improving.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am glad to hear it is improving, because, although I am not associated with any Labour movement
myself, I never lose an opportunity of impressing strongly upon the workers that they ought to belong to a trade union. In this case these twelve thousand women belonged to no trade union. What was the result? The average wage of these women was from 15s. to 18s. a week. It was not possible for them to save any money out of that, even when fully employed. Before two weeks were over starvation was practically dogging their footsteps. I myself took an interest in the matter. I called a public meeting, because the great bulk of those affected were my own constituents. The purpose of the meeting was the opening of a fund to deal with their claims for even passing and temporary relief. I made an appeal and I received something like £5,000 or £6,000. Many public-spirited men throughout this country, including the Speaker of the House of Commons, sent me generous subscriptions, and we were able to give to the women during the last three or four weeks of the strike 6s. or 7s. a week. I did not like to be engaged in that work. It was a humiliation for the women. I went into their houses and saw the results of the strike. I saw pictures taken from the walls and pawned. I saw the little pieces of furniture sold. I saw houses absolutely without food. I saw these women, who are not in the best of health even when in full employment, with almost a deathly pallor on their faces. All this was through no fault of their own. I thought it was inhuman, and I think it is un-Christian. It was a humiliation to have to appeal to private philanthropy or to charity for women who, under ordinary circumstances, would disdain the one and refuse to accept the other.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes finally to dispose of this question, will accept at once the suggestion made by the right hon. Member (Mr. Clynes) and include among those who are to receive unemployment donations all persons who are victims of a strike, who are cast out of work through no fault of their own, because, in my judgment, it is this vast conglomeration of the population which needs it most. That is where unemployment is felt most. Casual unemployment does not count so very much. The poor are exceedingly good to each other. If someone is out of employment his neighbour helps him, but
when a large number of men and women are out of work they cannot help each other, no matter how good and kind and sympathetic they wish to be to each other. The only way in which the unemployment problem can be solved satisfactorily, if we are to extirpate the spirit of discontent and bad blood among people who suffer through no fault of their own, is to accept the suggestion which has been made. I understand the right hon. Gentleman said that he will be glad to include the linen industry.

Sir R. HORNE: I said that I would be glad to consider it, if the linen trade wanted me to do so.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that if the workers, through representations made to him, ask to be included, the linen trade will be included?

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be very glad to consider it—I do not like the word sympathetically, because it is so often abused, but certainly sympathetically. Provision is made in the proposal for the inclusion of those who now are excluded, if it seems expedient from the general point of view.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman is one of the few Ministers who if he makes a promise keeps it. Therefore I am anxious to extract a promise from him. I can find no justification whatever for the exclusion of Ireland from the provisions of this measure. The excuse given was absolutely absurd. If it is a real excuse I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go as soon as this Debate is over and spend an hour or so in persuading the Chief Secretary for Ireland to withdraw the Education Bill. I do not know whether any influence or what influence has been brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman not to have Ireland included in this Bill. I cannot understand the situation. To me it presents a certain element of mystery. We want to be included. We have the evils of unemployment just as much as this country, and as long as we are part of the connection, as long as we belong to this un-happy arrangement by which we have to come to this Parliament for redress of our grievances—which we rarely get redressed—the only function I have to discharge in this House is to see that as little mischief as possible is done to Ireland
by this Parliament. It would be a mischief and a wrong and it would be resented by public opinion, especially of industrial Ulster, if this Bill is not applied to Ireland.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
This House, while desiring to afford additional unemployment insurance, declines to set up new machinery for this purpose which will incur heavy and unnecessary expenditure, and is of opinion that the benefits and contributions for unemployment shall be added forthwith to the National Health Insurance Scheme.
6.0 p.m.
In moving this Amendment I do not think that I am at all prejudicing the Debate, because the Amendment is framed in such a broad manner. I should like to say that the right hon. Gentleman has only to introduce a Bill for it to commend itself to the hon. Members. The Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the root principle of the Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the benefits. It has nothing whatever to do with the amount of the contributions. It is moved, as I believe, merely for the sake of economy and efficient administration. I do not in the least think it can be directed against trade unions. If carried, I do not think it would prejudice the interests of trade unions in any way at all. After all, we are all anxious for more unemployment insurance, but I feel that we ought all to be equally anxious to effect our purpose in the least extravagant manner possible. We have great confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, but he cannot possibly look into every detail of a complicated measure of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman must depend very largely upon his advisers, and I submit that in this case his advisers, so far as the administration of the scheme is concerned, have taken a wrong turning. What is the state of affairs at present? You have got very nearly 15,000,000 persons insured under the National Health Insurance Scheme; you have also got a limited number of persons insured under the unemployment scheme; you have got about seven trades, plus a few war-time occupations; and Sir Alfred Watson, the distinguished actuary, has made a calculation, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that there are about 3,500,000 persons insured at the present moment
under the unemployment scheme. You propose in this Bill to give unemployment insurance to every single person under the National Health Insurance Scheme, with the exception of domestic servants and agricultural labourers. That is to say, you are going to have exactly the same persons insured for unemployment as are insured already under the National Health Insurance Scheme, with those two exceptions, and on the single fiat of the Minister, without coming to Parliament, he can include domestic servants and agricultural labourers in the future. He can do it by Order in Council, which is laid on the table of the House, and if anybody happens to be lucky enough to spot it in the papers that he receives in the morning, he may be able to raise the matter late at night. If the right hon. Gentleman does it, the same population will be included in the National Health Insurance Scheme and in the unemployment insurance scheme, but in spite of this, the right hon. Gentleman is going to have a double machinery, when, I submit, the existing machinery could do equally well for both purposes.
Was there really ever a more un-businesslike scheme. After all, you have got the vast machine of Health Insurance working perfectly smoothly at the present moment. You have got the cards and the stamps that everybody is used to who belongs to a society, you have got Insurance Committees, you have got the great friendly societies, and you have got all kinds of approved societies. They have learned their lesson, and their organisation to-day is practically perfect, and the addition of unemployment insurance to their present work could be easily done. On the other hand, the present unemployment insurance is restricted to certain trades. The Labour Exchanges work the machinery with the exception of persons who receive benefit from the Trade Unions, but this experience of Labour Exchanges is comparatively limited, and yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take practically the whole of the population now under the National Health Insurance Scheme and involve them in a double machinery and a double administration. What will it mean? It will add, I submit, a huge machinery of paid officials to an already
enormous State machinery all over the country. The Minister calculates in the memorandum to the Bill that between one and a half and four millions will contract out of his Bill. Suppose we take the mean, and say that two and three-quarter millions choose to contract out, that means that nine million insured persons will come under his scheme, and nine million absolutely unnecessary stamps are going to be affixed every single week of the year. That is to say, over four hundred and fifty millions of absolutely unnecessary unemployment stamps are going to be affixed every year. Then you have got the time wasted in affixing the stamps, in cancelling them, and in printing them, as well as the material for their printing; you will also have to have nine million absolutely unnecessary cards distributed every year on which the stamps are to be affixed. I ask again, is that really a businesslike proposal?
Under the Bill, in Clause 12, you are going to have a further host of umpires, deputy-umpires, and insurance officers, and another great host of subordinate officers, inspectors, and servants for the purposes of the Act, and a third host of paid chairmen and members of courts of referees, In fact, there is no end of complication of machinery between these two interlocked administrations, and I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, under Clause 42, has taken power to remove difficulties should they arise. He mentioned the question of one stamp. Of course, the friendly societies objected to one stamp if they are not able to work the Act, but they do not object to one stamp if they are allowed to work the Act under this present scheme. On the other hand, if the work is done by the existing Health Insurance Administration, I believe there will be an enormous saving. In Clause 12 of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman tolls us that ten per cent. of the whole income is going in administration, and yet he is only allowing the trade unions five per cent. for administering the benefit, Under my Amendment, I am quite sure that the administration could be done for infinitely less than ten per cent. of the income. The work of paying benefits and receiving larger contributions by the existing societies would hardly add to the cost at all. In the localities where these approved societies have their branches they would require hardly any extra staff.
It would only be in the central administration, whore I believe a few extra hands would be required, and a few new books and a few additional columns for the benefits to be given would be required.
In the gracious Speech from the Throne a new Health Insurance Bill has already been promised, and all that would be necessary would be a few special clauses added on to that Bill, before it is introduced, dealing with unemployment insurance. I believe that certain arrangements would probably be necessary to change the unemployment yearly basis to the Health Insurance half-yearly basis, and you would also have the questions of arrears and accumulated reserves to deal with, but these could easily be met. Moreover, if unemployment were tacked on to Health Insurance there would be no trouble to the insured person. The only practical change would be that there would be an additional deduction from his wage. He would not have to join another Society, and he would not be canvassed and pestered and bothered by agents going about trying to get his membership. When he was out of work, the only thing he would have to do would be to go to a Labour Exchange and get a certificate saying that he was out of work, just as at present under the Health Insurance Scheme he goes to the doctor and gets a certificate to say he is sick. I believe that the vast majority of approved societies want to work this scheme. Nothing bores the House so much as having to listen to quotations from documents, and I will not trouble them with more than a very few. The Scottish Co-Operative Friendly Society say:
I hope that this Amendment will at least have the effect of causing such modifications to he made in the Bill as will enable Approved Societies to have the opportunity of taking up work which I am sure they could deal with expeditiously and satisfactorily.
There is also the Druid's quarterly report, in which they ask that the friendly societies should be allowed to work the scheme. They say:
If the Unemployment Bill is not so amended by Parliament as to provide that all Approved Societies may administer its benefits, then a serious injustice will he done to many of those societies.
The Rational Association Friendly Society have passed a resolution to the following effect:
That this Society is prepared to work the unemployment insurance for its members
if the Regulations make it possible to do so.
Then I have resolutions from the Joint Committee of Approved Societies, the National Conference of Industrial Assurance Approved Societies and others, representing several millions of persons. The Sheffield Equalized Independent Druids say that:
As the friendly societies of this country do not generally provide such a benefit, they are, as the Bill stands, excluded from administering its provisions. The great friendly societies are all Approved Societies under the National Health Insurance Act, and have transacted business under that Act with considerable success. If the Unemployment Bill is not so amended by Parliament as to provide that all Approved Societies may administer its benefits, then a serious injustice will be done to many of those societies.
The National Conference of Friendly Societies sent a resolution this morning asking the same thing. This Bill does not give these societies a fair opportunity of coming under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. Under Clause 17 a condition is laid down that if a friendly society wants to come under the scheme and administer these benefits, before the Act passes into operation, it has to draw up an unemployment scheme, a separate branch, giving better unemployment benefits than the benefits in the Bill. I do not believe a single friendly society in this country, before this Bill comes into operation, is going to set up a separate unemployment branch giving better unemployment benefits than under this Bill, and if they do not do it, not a single one of these friendly societies will will be able to administer the scheme under the Bill as it is at present drawn.

Mr. JESSON: How is an approved health society to assist in finding employment in hundreds of different trades?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not propose to do away with the Labour Exchanges. I am not trying to interfere with any existing machinery. But what will a friendly society have to do under Clause 17? It will have to set up a separate branch. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that. It will have to make a separate scheme in the society for giving an unemployment benefit better than the benefit under the Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. A friendly society includes men in very different trades, and I do not see how he can apply this Bill and his argument to the case of a friendly society. The Bill is intended to deal with industry.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think that makes my argument all the stronger. I believe I know what the right hon. Gentleman's objection will be when he answers this Amendment. He will say that he has already got a staff to deal with unemployment benefits and that that staff can very easily be enlarged. But we do not want to enlarge the staff. The whole desire of the people of this country who are anxious for economy is to get the staffs of Government-paid officials cut down. The right hon. Gentleman will also tell us that his experienced staff will be able to do the work better. But I would point out that the staffs of the approved societies have been for many years administering benefits, and could perfectly well take on also the administration of the unemployment benefit. Experience has shown how enormously important the supervision of these benefits is. Approved societies, to my mind, would supervise these benefits infinitely better than the insurance officer of the Labour Exchange. It is not in the interest of the insurance officer to do it. He does not care how many benefits he pays out. But it is in the interests of every single approved society to see that the benefits are properly earned and that the society remains solvent. The right hon. Gentleman may say that under this Amendment people will not be able to contract out of the Bill. I agree. But to my mind it is far better that they should not be able to contract out. They do not contract out of health insurance, yet they have to pay the same contribution and have to give the same benefits under the valuation, while if they make profits they have to help insolvent societies. But hero the right hon. Gentleman is allowing them to contract out of the Bill altogether, and they can charge what contribution they like. But if you allow them to contract out of unemployment benefit the day will surely come when people will insist on contracting out of health insurance. They will claim that if they are allowed to contract out of one scheme they are equally entitled to contract out of another.
I want to make one further point. If the Bill is passed the whole of this scheme is going to be conducted by the Labour Exchanges and not by the trade unions apart from the contracting-out. I venture to submit that the Labour Exchange machinery will not be at all popular in administering it. A resolution was passed the other day at a Poor Law Conference to the effect that the Conference was of opinion that public unemployment exchanges had failed in the purpose for which they were established, and it recommended their entire abolition, while Lord Askwith, who presided, said that, whatever their value might have been in the past, when there was not so much organisation among the trade unions and the employers' associations as there was at present, the fact remained that they had now become a very expensive item to the community, and were having thrown upon them work for which they were ill-fitted. The right hon. Gentleman is handing over to the Labour Exchanges a very large part of the administration of this Bill. I do not think that that is a good introduction for the scheme. When he brought it in last December the right hon. Gentle man's proposals were for a single stamp and a single card for all kinds of insurance, and I think he realised the waste that would take place, supposing you had two cards, one for each kind of insurance. He has now dropped that plan. For what reason I cannot understand.

Sir R. HORNE: At the request of the friendly societies.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think that is a sufficient reason for pressing a scheme which is obviously uneconomical. I believe that the extravagance of public departments is a thing which the House desires to avoid to the utmost of its power, and therefore I move this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: In seconding this Amendment I should like to say at the outset that my sympathies are entirely with the Bill, although my feeling is that some other method or machinery might be adopted by which the provisions of the Bill could be carried out. In reading the Bill one notes that it is to be worked by the Employment Exchanges, by the Post Office, and by those organisations which are at present in existence for dealing with unemployment.
I think myself that the National Insurance Scheme might be brought into play to carry out the whole provisions of this Bill adequately. Expense would thereby be saved, so would administration, and so would the duplication of officials. What we really want is to bring the whole scheme of national insurance under one administration. I think this House should have consideration for the position which friendly societies would be placed in if they were debarred from carrying out the provisions of this Bill. As it stands at present, a great friendly society would not be able to work the Bill at all, and great injustice might be done to it by the fact that a large number of its members might withdraw from its membership in order that they might deal with the unemployment and other schemes entirely in one society. There is one point which I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman. In case of illness the worker would be drawing his benefit from one society for illness and from another society for unemployment, and it would be very difficult indeed in some cases to check those workers who might be sick and unemployed at the same time. I repeat I have every sympathy with the Bill. Everyone recognises that unemployment is one of the commonest causes of sickness and poverty, and this House should do every thing possible, not only to prevent unemployment, but to make proper provision for workers suffering, through no fault of their own, from unemployment.

Mr. SEDDON: On a point of Order. The Mover of the Amendment assumed that he could move this Amendment, but that the discussion would proceed on the general question. I want to know whether that assumption is right, or whether speakers will have to confine themselves to the Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: The discussion will be general. The choice offered to the House is between reading the Bill a Second time and adopting the proposals of the hon. Member.

Mr. KIDD: The Minister of Labour, with conspicuous modesty, said he did not regard this measure as heroic, and I think every Member of the House will agree that it should prove something better than heroic. It brings to the worker a large measure of relief from that anxiety which undoubtedly militates against his
efficiency, and, consequently, depresses the production of the country. The Minister very properly made reference to the inter-dependence in this country between industry and industry, and he spoke with particular experience in view of the wide rangs of his duties in the office he holds. He reminded the House how industries were interlocked to an extent which the average man in the street could hardly realise. In the same way as we talk of the mutual interests as between industries, we may also talk of the mutual interests as between different parties engaged in the industries. There is a corresponding inter-dependence, and it is gratifying to those who are taking an active interest in industrial matters to find that this measure realises the mutuality of interest. The Labour Members and ourselves disagree more with regard to methods than with regard to the point at which we seek to arrive. We are divided into two camps—shall I say, socialists and individualists? However we may be divided, we are at one in recognising the mutuality of interest of the different workers in any industry, these workers extending from the man at the very top, to the man engaged in the humblest form of manual labour. It is gratifying to us to find that this legislation recognises that mutuality in the sense of securing the worker's position as partner of the industry. In reading this Bill one is instinctively reminded of the great services rendered by the late Mr. Chamberlain in a similar way when he brought in his measure in 1896 with regard to Workmen's Compensation, which more emphatically, perhaps, than any previous measure passed by the House of Commons, recognised the element of partner interest as existing even in the humblest workers in the industry. The Labour Minister doubtless on this occasion will be charged with imposing an undue burden on industry. Mr. Chamberlain, in connection with his Workmen's Compensation Act, was accused in the same way. But he was able to dissipate the fear, and I venture to express the hope that, on this occasion, the feeling that any undue burden is being thrown on industry will prove to be equally unfounded. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) seemed to me, in his description of the Bill, and in the criticisms in which he indulged, to be guilty of certain inconsistencies.
In the earlier part of his speech he endorsed the view that no man can get anything for nothing. As I understood him, he took the view that the mental effect of seeming to get something for nothing was deteriorating. Notwithstanding that impression in his mind when he came to treat of the contributions under this particular Bill he took exception to the fact that the contribution was from the worker as well as from the employer. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I submit that the method adopted by the Labour Minister in regard to splitting or sharing these contributions is entirely in conformity with his own earlier expression of opinion. I do not suppose that the 3d. charged to the worker is really only with the intention of relieving industry to the extent of 3d. per man. I think rather that that particular method of splitting the contribution is to occasion in the worker a mental attitude towards a payment which reminds him more and more of his responsibility as a worker to maintain efficiency and to give of his very best service. That, as I understand it, is the real reason lying behind this joint contribution. For that reason I think the Labour Minister has acted very wisely in splitting the contribution as he has done.
Many Members on this side of the House entirely sympathise with the views so well expressed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the desirability of the workmen being protected against the idleness from which he is compelled to suffer, apart from any act of foolishness or other action on his part. This measure goes a long way to give that relief. Many of us would have preferred it should go further, but the very relief given now should in a measure stimulate industry, and by encouraging a greater efficiency on the part of everyone engaged should tend to maintain employment and wages. After all, one perfect cure for unemployment is to get our industries fully engaged. It is the duty not only of the Government to keep that fact before them, but that fact should also be kept before the great trade unions of this country. They should realise that after all the greatest service they can render to the worker is to maintain him in employment by sustaining in every reasonable sense the industries of the country: then the call upon this unemployment fund will not be very extravagant.
In regard to the suggestion on the other side that the payment might have been more, I think the right hon. Gentleman might agree that perhaps our stability to-day, so much greater than that enjoyed by any of the other great Allies, is largely due to the fact that we have observed in this country in our development the wise rule: "To hasten slowly." The great thing in regard to our social legislation is not that we should take a plunge or be revolutionary, but that in the main we should keep on the rails. In this particular measure the Labour Minister has observed that rule; he has kept on the rails. I venture to predict that the result of his effort will be that we shall find ourselves a good way on the path of progress towards a final settlement of this vexed question.

Sir ALLAN SMITH: Dealing first with the question of the Amendment, may I express the hope that, above all other things, it will not succeed. There seems to be in the handling of Labour matters, matters of employment and unemployment, a most extraordinary fascination for everyone who has no experience in dealing with these matters. That fascination seems to be strong amongst certain classes of the community, and in certain associations, and the result of it is that persons and associations are willing to assume responsibilities which others would be very glad to get clear of. They are willing to get together scratch staffs, and so add to the burden of administration, and ultimately to bring themselves to that bureaucracy of which the hon. Member has complained. One of the most difficult things I know of is to deal with the unemployment benefit. I submit that it is absolutely impossible to deal with it unless in conjunction with the avoidance of unemployment or pro vision for employment. In regard to provision for employment and the avoidance of unemployment, the proposed insurance against unemployment by joint contributions of those engaged what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said perhaps gives a wrong impression—an impression he did not intend to give—when he stated that the contracting out Clause would be the means of compelling the employer to see that he has less unemployment than previously had been the case. I was rather sorry to hear the remarks made by my right hon. Friend on this side,
that there was a sort of antagonistic feeling existing which would give one the impression that there was not a community of interest between employers and employed, and that the employed were demanding that to which they believed they were entitled, the Government saying to the employers that they ought to make concessions. I speak with some experience on these matters. We have got to a stage when all parties in industry realise, as they never realised before, that unless sectional feelings are scrapped, and unless the two parties are going to show a great deal more consideration for the position of each other, no final settlement will be arrived at in regard to labour questions. I cannot too strongly impress upon this House the fact that at this particular moment we are at the parting of the ways.
This particular measure is going to test whether or not a community of interest is to be established and maintained, or whether we are going back to what we are told was the old state of affairs, where employers and workmen were continually quarrelling with each other. I do not think there is a single employer in the country who denies that provision ought to be made for unemployment, either in the way of preventing it or by compensation when it occurs; but I do say that there are numbers of employers, and very important sections of the community, who say that unless there: some demonstration of willingness to give that output which alone will avoid unemployment, there should be no compensation or any consideration, as unemployment is really caused by the restriction of output.
It is all very well to say that the workman has the belief, rightly or wrongly—probably wrongly—that the more output he gives the sooner unemployment will arrive. Very well, assume that is so, what is the best way to get away from that view? Not only by discussing economic problems, or putting forward economic ideas, or reading economic essays to the workmen. These do not much appeal to him. What he wants to feel is that there is some community of interest between himself and the employer, so that he and the employer may do what they can to avoid unemployment, so far as may be. In any case industry in its various elements has now an opportunity of getting together.
I think, however, the Labour Minister will require a very considerable Amendment of the contracting-out Clause. No doubt the Labour Minister felt entitled to assume that only those who have less than the average amount of unemployment will be inclined to contract out. There, I think, he is entirely wrong. The data on which he has proceeded in assuming the average out-of-work percentages bear no relation whatever to the present state of affairs, and certainly is no guide to what may take place in the future. The data on which his various percentages were calculated were the unemployment figures of the trade unions when their membership was so much less than to-day, and the circumstances gave not the same average as the circumstances of today would do. For the last few years, and certainly during the War, the amount of unemployment is no guide as to what may take place in the future. Further, if employers and the members of trade unions get together with a view to reducing unemployment then the percentages he has put forward are absolutely without conviction, because a set of circumstances will arise which has no parallel in the history of modern industry, or of trade unions.
I do not think that the Minister of Labour was justified in assuming what he did in regard to contracting out. I have in my mind cases where probably a section of industry will contract out simply because their unemployment has, up till now, been above the average. If that be so, the State would be relieved to that extent. On the other hand, if such sections, being above the average, are prepared to assume the responsibility of carrying out the ordinary administration of this Bill they will carry the State burden to that extent, and the amount to be allowed in such a case should not be six-tenths, but six-tenths plus the saving to the State so achieved. Trade unions which administer unemployment receive 5 per cent. from the State, and their members get the full advantage of the twopence. A contracting-out scheme gets neither the twopence nor the 5 per cent., but only six-tenths of one penny.
I submit there is an absolute contradiction between the principle enunciated and the method of giving effect to the principle.
It is exceedingly desirable that employers and trade unions should meet together for the purpose of discussing unemployment and the consequent regulation of trade. I think, however, that the difficulties that have to be faced in that direction will require not modification of the terms, but investigation as to whether or not, in the event of a particular trade contracting out, there ought not to be some allowance made in accordance with its record, such as it may be, in relation to unemployment, as to whether that record was below or above the average. If a trade contracted out while, say, the average was 20 per cent., that is to the interest of the State because the State gets relieved from from a burden which would be carried by the industry itself.
The Compensation the Government should make to that trade should include not only the 10 per cent. by way of payment of administrative expenses, but also a pro-portion of the 2d. which goes to increase the benefits under this scheme. I should be very interested indeed if the Minister of Labour when he replies would state whether or not that question has been discussed and investigated.
There is one further point, and that is the Clause where the Minister takes power to make Regulations whereby the payment of the benefits may be made through the Post Office. I have no doubt the Minister of Labour is aware of a number of Approved Societies not being Friendly Societies, but Approved Work Societies composed of workpeople and employers, who have contracted out of the Insurance Act. If there is any difficulty in dealing with the distribution of the benefits, and if the Labour Exchanges are not available in particular localities I would suggest that the Minister of Labour should have in the Clause sufficient liberty to enable him to take advantage of those institutions where he will get a combination of the interests both of employers and employed. This is one of the most important features in the administration of the Insurance Act. There are some other points which I might deal with, but as these are points which may be dealt with by specific Amendments in detail I shall leave them over until the Committee stage.

Mr. SPENCER: I think most of us are disappointed with the provisions of this Bill. It is ostensibly framed for the purpose of meeting the greatest evil of the capitalist system. The Bill itself is a very grave indictment against that system. It is evidence in itself of the absence of any scheme other for dealing with the supply of the nation's need or of any scheme for the wise handling of labour power, or for the efficient manipulation of our technical and mechanical power for productivity. It is evidence of the absence of all those things. One of the most pronounced evils of the capitalist system is this question of maintaining a reservoir of surplus labour, which is necessary to keep up the capitalist system and this surplus labour has a tendency to depress the standard of life. This Bill, which is ostensibly a Bill for insurance in case of unemployment, is really a measure to dress up unemployment to deprive it of some of its horrors. I am not speaking for the party to which I belong, and some of them may not agree with me, but I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman I am at least authoritatively speaking for one of the most powerful labour organisations when I tell him that in its present form we do not intend to come within the provisions of this Bill.
The basis of this Bill is a contributory principle, and it works upon the principle of contribution. I have no fault to find with that principle, and I recognise that a contribution is necessary and essential. You cannot build up a scheme without some form of contribution, but when I have said that, I want to suggest that there is room for a wide difference of opinion as to the method of that contribution. The method adopted in this Bill is defective because it is not equal. The contribution which the employer is supposed to make he never makes at all, or very rarely. His contribution is a charge upon the expenses of the industry which he is running. He transfers that burden to the consumer, and ultimately the burden to be borne by the contribution which he is supposed to be making is not borne by him as an individual or by the shareholders, but in 99 per cent. of the cases it is simply transferred to the consumer, whereas when you demand that the workman shall make a contribution it is a direct charge upon his wages and upon his income. Therefore, there
is all the difference in the world between the contribution which the employer is supposed to be making and the one you are getting from the workers, and because of that difference I understand the party to which I belong are prepared to give a Second Reading, although the organisation with which I am associated do not subscribe to the contributory principle which is established in the Bill.
I say that the principle is not equal because, so far as the workman is concerned, it is a dual contribution. The workman first of all makes a contribution by his labour, and ultimately, whatever provisions are made against unemployment, they come from the labourer whether by the hand or the brain, and in making that contribution to industry that is the only contribution the workman should be asked to make, and out of the industry and the resources of the State, and out of the land values and rents, you should be able to make provision for unemployment. On this side of the House we are very strongly opposed to this principle of contribution, because it makes a direct demand upon the wages of the worker. It asks him not only to contribute in his energy and work, but also to contribute out of his wages. After asking him to make that provision by means of money and labour we are informed in this House to-night that this Bill is a very heroic measure. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this measure may be animated by the best possible motives in relation to Labour, and I believe he is really desirous of doing something to meet the horrors of unemployment, but the best way to proceed is to tackle the industry itself rather than try to make provision for unemployment. If, however, you have to make provision for unemployment, it should be made, not out of wages, but it should be a charge on the industry in which the man works and the State jointly, and these two together out of the spinning of the wheels of industry should provide all that is necessary for this fund.
I want to turn now to the question of the benefits under this Bill. This measure provides that in case of unemployment there should be 15s. and 12s. paid. I want to say on behalf of labour that we view this 15s. and 12s. as not only being totally inadequate, but as being an insult to labour. These sums are simply
indications of the value that the Government is placing upon human life and human effort. The last speaker stated that it was very necessary now to get both sides together, capital and labour, in order to build up a community of interests, and he said without labour and capital seeing identically it was going to be impossible for us to produce to the full extent of our capacity. It is said that we should encourage provision for unemployment, so that the working man who is going to put his back into industry can feel assured when he has produced sufficient to give us that measure of industrial prosperity that we had years ago, that he is not going himself to be deprived of the same standard of life that he would have if he were actually at work. Does this provision of 15s. and 12s. provide a man with a standard of life that he would be entitled to when he has contributed to the industrial prosperity of this country?
7.0 p.m.
What is the position, so far as he is concerned, provided by the provision of this Bill? He sees clearly before him when by his skill and energy and labour he has contributed to a state of things which will be identical with the state of things that previously existed, that when there was over-production, instead of deriving the advantages of that happy position, he is told by this Bill that the standard of living is going to be reduced to one-fourth of what it is actually at the present time. Is that a happy position for a man to survey, or a state of things which is going to create amongst working men the spirit to put forth their best? Until we have an unemployment Bill which guarantees that for every period of unemployment which cannot be avoided a recognised standard of life is going to be maintained, you are not going to encourage men to do their best to produce those things that ought to be produced. There is a standard of insurance that we want in order to maintain ourselves when unemployed. We can never get that standard until the skill and knowledge and work of the labourer enable him to contribute to this end by the fruits of his industry. We can never get a proper solution of our difficulties until the wheels of industry spin round again. We must all produce the goods; we must fill the mills, the warehouses, and the wharves
full of goods until we find all these choked with the products of British industry, and then we must have a guarantee that we shall have a share in the common enjoyment of our actual products in our industries. Until we have that guarantee we shall never get that standard, and we shall not be satisfied. The benefits, I repeat, are totally inadequate and an insult to the labouring man. He is to look forward to 15s. per week, which is not one-fourth of what is now required for a man with his family of three or four children to keep them in anything like comfort and decency. We will have to give men some guarantee that, in case of enforced idleness, their standard of living-is not going to be adversely affected Labour is not going to be encouraged to do its best if this is the prospect before it.
So far as the machinery for the settlement of disputes is concerned, it is totally unsatisfactory. Why should a Government official be the only person to decide whether a man is entitled or not to the benefits under the insurance scheme? If we are going to continue this system of insurance, the working man, more and more, should be brought in to run it and manipulate it. I protest strongly against power being given to one man, a Government official, to deal with this kind of dispute, even though there may also be referees and appeals to a High Court to give a final decision. I am authorised by the Miners' Federation to say that, after giving careful consideration to the Bill, they are totally opposed to it, that they will not accept it, and that they will not be brought within the provisions of the Bill, if it comes into force in its present form. They will have nothing to do with it, and you will have to bring force to bear upon them before they accept the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. J. MURRAY: I desire as a representative of an industrial constituency to welcome the Hill and to congratulate the Minister who has spoken and the Government upon what is a very essential and very great measure. Insurance is in-fashion at present. Throughout Europe people are settling down and discussing the possibility of settling many of the problems of working-class life by measures of insurance. Italy has quite lately in its Parliament introduced a great scheme of working-class insurance. The Swiss
Government has carried through an important measure for general insurance against unemployment. I would like to trace the broad tendency of Clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill. They represent Sections 105 and 106 of the old Act, and they have an important relation to industrial development and its relationship to the State. When the Bill of 1911 was introduced, bringing the function of insurance under the State, we had complaints that the State was abusing its powers. There was not only the objection to the methods which were to be employed, but there was an objection because the State was to carry them out. It was felt that, once the business of insurance became a matter of State administration, it would be so for good, and for all time. It was said that it would affect private enterprise and would have an ill effect upon the future. In my opinion, it is for the State to initiate and inaugurate methods of organisation in such matters of this difficulty, uncertainty, and magnitude which are not likely to be carried out by private enterprise, and then, after the State has come in and organised such matters, they should be taken over from the State by voluntary organisations. They should not be run by the State, but to the State should be reserved the power and duty of oversight, without any part in the actual administration. That is certainly what ought to be done with regard to unemployment insurance. I am grateful to the Minister of Labour for the emphasis he placed on the possibility of placing into the hands of industry the powers of self-government contained in Sections 15 and 16. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was against the contributory system, and yet he told us that there were three parties interested in insurance—the workman, the employer, and the whole community generally. If that is so, all those who are interested in industry should look forward to the time when the State will be crushed out and the other two parties will have power to carry on the schemes.
I join in the complaints that in certain respects the Bill is not satisfactory, especially in the benefits proposed. A sum of 15s. a week is rather worse than 7s. a week was before the War. It is a mere nothing compared with what is necessary. I would like to mention the steps which Switzerland has taken. In the event of a workman being actually
out of work there, the standard payment to him as unemployment pay is 60 per cent. of his average earnings. If he has people legally dependent upon him it will be seventy per cent. If a man has no dependants the maximum is 5 francs, equivalent to 5 shillings, a day, or 30 shillings a week. If he has four people dependent upon him he is entitled to 60 shillings a week. The mean between that is 45 shillings, and what we are offering to our people under this Act is 15 shillings a week. I hope that the Minister of Labour is not satisfied with the possibility that any living English workman may regret, when he is unemployed, that he is not a native of Switzerland.

Mr. SEDDON: I think the maiden speech of the Member for Croydon (Sir A. Smith) was a most valuable contribution to the Debate. I am sorry that the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) took us on a promenade around various economic theories instead of dealing with the Bill itself. He said he was instructed by the miners to say they would have nothing to do with it. I understood that the miners were a democratic organisation in which the rank and file have something to say before the leaders come to any decision upon a Bill.

Mr. SPENCER: How do you know they have not?

Mr. SEDDON: I think the miners have always desired to share the common burden with their fellow workmen in dealing with all these great problems of industry. We are not here to discuss theories of government, whether scientific or not. We are here to discuss the provisions of this Bill, and I join sincerely in the remarks made by the Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin), who made a protest against the exclusion of Ireland from the Bill, I cannot conceive why Ireland is not included. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to solve these difficulties by the exclusion of Ireland, because he must know that in many parts of that country the overwhelming majority of the trade unionists belong to English trade unions, and if he is going to have a dual system of Unemployment Benefit, the result will be that those trade unionists in Ireland will be placed in a different position from that of the trade unionists in the same societies in England. If that happens he will have the
trade unionists of this country up against him. They are not going to be satisfied with the exclusion of their fellow workers in Ireland from an Act of Parliament which is conferring certain benefits upon themselves.
I protest also against the exclusion of agricultural labourers and domestic servants. I remember an hon. Member speaking a little time ago gave great credit to the late Mr. Joseph Chamber lain for his Workmen's Compensation Act. In doing that Mr. Chamberlain started a principle which was sound and it has been beneficial in its operation. After that we had a Bill to amend it during the Premiership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and in those far-off days it was my function to champion a class of workers who had received very little consideration at the hands of Parliament. I refer to the shop assistants. We had to vote against the Government in Committee on that point. I am happy to remember that we defeated the Government. The Minister tried to exclude shop workers and attempted some fancy arrangements, but he did not get. a majority. I will never forget the attitude of the Prime Minister at that time in the House. One of the Members was protesting against the inclusion of the shop assistants, and the Prime Minister at once said, "Why should they not be subject to insurance? They are entitled to it the same as other workers throughout the country." The same argument should apply to domestic servants, who do suffer from unemployment, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think. It is a form of unemployment which is very often painful in the extreme. Those who are engaged in domestic service are often without homes of their own, and the amount of remuneration they receive is not sufficient to enable them to get proper lodgings during a period of unemployment, and it is perpetuating a real social evil if we are to leave them outside of this Act. It would be a great advantage to them if they could look forward to this unemployment benefit. It would give them a feeling of security and independence which they do not at present possess. The same with regard to the agricultural labourers. I cannot conceive why this industry should be left out, if we are to share in the belief, which is the basis of my political philosophy, that
we must have a closer relationship between all the various parties who are engaged in our industries. If we are going to have that, then I do not see why agriculture when it is receiving consideration ought to be excused from an obligation and liability which is being thrown upon the rest of the industries of this country.
There is another point, and I join with my right hon. Friend Mr. Clynes on that, and it is a point which I think has been decided upon without due consideration. It will certainly inflict a grievous, undeserved wrong if in the case of a dispute and a strike a certain section of the employment at the works who are thrown into idleness by the strike are to be victimised and, though not contributory to the cause of the dispute, are not to receive benefit. I hope when we come to discuss this Bill in Committee that there will be a larger vision. The right hon. Gentleman has been credited from all sides as a gentleman with good intentions, and I add my quota of appreciation of his good intentions. I want him to realise that in dealing with this vast problem of unemployment old precedents are of no use and that he should face the new situation. The question of cost is a consideration I admit, but the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was here in this instance as a special pleader for an association or associations which want to have an extension of their operations, with an addition, I suppose, to their accumulated funds. So far as unemployment is concerned it is a question for the trades unions infinitely more than for any friendly society dealing with insurance. There are one hundred and one industries, and you must have the trained trade union official who is interested in the welfare of his members, and not an onlooker who is interested in the accumulation of funds of the society he happens to represent. The cost is a consideration, but do not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. So far as Ireland is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman will be doing a great wrong to his own reputation and will be inflicting a grievous wrong on the country, and he will secure the condemnation of the vast body of trade unionists throughout the three kingdoms.

Major HURST: This is a great and good Bill, but nevertheless I do not think it
ought to be read a second time without a protest being made against one bad principle which is embodied in its provisions, and to which the Amendment does not advert. I refer to the unnecessary and unjust differentiation between men and women. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked the reason for the differentiation his reply was that it was based upon precedent and tradition in this case. That, with great respect, is a fallacy, because so far as this section of the National Insurance Act is concerned, men and women have previously been treated on exactly the same basis with regard to unemployment. When the rates of benefit were increased during the war the figure was placed at 11s. for both men and women; and therefore this is an innovation in the present Bill by making an important distinction between the benefits given to men and women. Under the third schedule women are to pay 2½d. per week as against the man's contribution of 3d., and under the second schedule the woman is to receive 12s. benefit and the man 15s. My contention is that the differentiation is thoroughly bad and that the State with regard to what is purely a question of arithmetic and the values of respective contributions, ought to pay no more attention to difference in sex than they pay to difference in creed or colour or politics. But assuming for a moment that the principle of equality is not to be applied and that the woman's contribution is to be 2½d. per week and the man's 3d., then I submit that the benefit to be received by the woman should bear the same ratio to the man's benefit as the woman's contribution bears to the man's contribution. In the pre sent case the woman is going to pay one-sixth less in contribution than the man and she ought to receive only one-sixth less in benefit. On that principle the woman ought to get 12s. 6d. unemployment benefit and not 12s. The only inference one can draw from that injustice is that the 6d. is being taken from the woman in order to subsidise the benefits which are going to be received by the man.
I should like to put the case against this feature of the Bill on a broader basis. The halfpenny less which the woman is going to pay Is a matter of absolutely no use to her whatever. It does not matter at all to the ordinary worker whether she pays 2½d. or 3d.,
whereas the difference in benefit is very material. The 12s. or the 15s. may be a mere pittance at present-day prices, but the three shillings extra of benefit is of value, and I have no doubt the working woman would far rather pay the extra ½d. per week in order to get 3s. greater benefit. That is the view which I know has been taken by working women in Lancashire, who put their ease before me. It is on the strength of this that I urge that the light hon. Gentleman might very well consider this question of the contribution, so that where women are willing to pay the extra ½d. per week he could put their contribution on the same level as the man's and thereby entitle them to an additional 3s. per week. We often hear of the principle of equality between men and women and that there is to be no differentiation between the sexes, and that they are to have equal rights. We have been told that when women had the vote they would find themselves under no economic disabilities or disadvantages. Here you have an admirable opportunity for translating those maxims and phrases into the purview of practical politics. We have seen this principle departed from again and again even after the War. The return to pre-War practices involved great hardships on women. The Board of Education has utterly ignored the question of equal pay with regard to teachers, and cow, here again, we have another illustration of the absolute neglect of women's interests on a question which is of very great and vital importance to them. My view is that those who have framed this particular aspect of the Bill are blind to the way in which the social and economic conditions of the country have been altered since the War. There is a vast number of women who cannot possibly get married and who are, in the nature of things, thrown upon the industrial world. They have the same rights exactly as citizens and as workers as men. It seems to me that the system which is embodied in this part of the Bill inflicts an injustice which this House ought to do its best to defeat. During the suffrage movement we heard a good deal about sex antagonism and a great deal of nonsense, because it is as stupid and disastrous a principle as class antagonism. There is no more reason for sex warfare than for class warfare, but just as class injustice breeds class warfare, so also it is sex injustice that breeds sex warfare. I hope that the House will refrain from
inflicting what is clearly an injustice on women. I ask the House to be not unmindful of the just claims of the great and growing multitude of women workers, on whose behalf I have made this appeal.

Mr. SEXTON: My objection to this Bill as it now exists is to its compulsory and contributory character. For the first time in the history of many of the Unions of this country which are not included in the present law of unemployment insurance, it brings in industries like my own which have never had during their existence a scheme for unemployed benefits. The position of the casual labourer has not enabled him to create an unemployment fund. If we are to be compelled, and we are according to the Bill, it will necessitate on us the creation of a contribution for unemployment if we are to have a scheme of our own and work it. On the other hand I would point out, by the provisions of this Bill, the casual labourer would be paying his contribution to the State with the employed and would never be able to qualify for benefit although he had paid those contributions. I think the simplest way out of the difficulty would be a non-contributory scheme. I repeat what has already been stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Miles Platting Division (Mr. Clynes), why should any man who is willing to produce be penalised because he is robbed of the opportunity of producing for the good of the community. The principle of unemployment goes deeper down than the mere surface. It is a big question, into which? am not prepared to go in all its aspects to-night; but, after all, the bedrock of this question is the landless man, who is divorced from the land and the use made of the land which hampers and hinders industry and the workers. That is the bedrock principle, which I do not pursue further now. My right hon. Friend also pointed out that the workmen and their representatives object to the financial burden on the State because it is demoralising, and there I heartily agree with him. A non-contributory Hill would remove that demoralisation and would put the burden not upon one particular industry, but upon all the industries of the country, which should be prepared to provide for the question of unemployment so long as it existed. That at least would remove the demoralising effect of a State contribution. The right hon. Gentleman also
said that employers under a scheme of this kind would be encouraged to shirk the issue. Again, may I point out that a centralised charge upon industry, pooling the whole cost of unemployment in all industries, would remove that difficulty?
I would make an appeal with regard to the unfairness of excluding Ireland from the Act, It is an impracticable thing to do. You compel us under this Act in England to come under it and to be subject to its administration. You will compel us to do that for our English members, but at the same time you are excluding 7,000 of our Irish members from the same benefit. I do not see the justification, the logic, or the practicability of excluding Ireland from the provisions of the Bill. Seven thousand of our members in Ireland will be disfranchised while our English and Scotch members will enjoy the benefit of the Act. As to the question of increasing the amount of the benefit, really I thought the time for asking "where is the money to come from" had passed. A nation that can find £7,000,000 per day for destruction ought to be able to find £10,000,000 a year to deal with unemployment. We had it stated in this House only the other night, and it has not been contradicted—indeed, it was backed up by figures—that in the South Wales coalfields alone there is a profit of £50,000,000 a year after paying all costs of production. That is where some of the money could come from, if you would only listen to the voice of wisdom and nationalise the mines. Fifteen shillings a week is starvation—it is worse than starvation—and as one right hon. Gentleman said just now it is a direct insult to offer it to a man. There is an inquiry going on at the present time in which the employers admit that the poverty line in the case of the casual labourer is to-day £3 17s. per week, out of which he has to keep his wife and four children. You are asking him to pay 3d. per week out of his wages to insure himself if he should ever qualify, getting 15s. a week. I would not do anything to prevent the passage of the Second Reading of this Bill, but I do hope that when it goes to Committee the right hon. Gentleman will take note of the points raised in this Debate and accept some of the suggestions which we have put forward.

Sir A. WARREN: May I venture to offer my tribute of recognition to the right hon. Gentleman who presented this Bill, and to say how much we appreciate the kindly courtesy with which he deals with us and the patience he has shown? During the last few years the Government have been interesting themselves in various measures of insurance, and it seems to some of us that the time has come when it would be of the greatest value to this House and to the country as a whole if we could have some outline of the whole policy of the Government as regards insurance. In 1911 there was passed a comprehensive measure of National Health Insurance with an unemployment section attached to it. In 1016 there was an enlargement of the unemployment insurance. In 1918 we had an Amendment of the National Health Insurance Act, and to-day we have before us a very wide and far-reaching proposal with regard to unemployment. In all probability, in a few weeks, there will be presented to this House a Bill amending the National Health Insurance Act in relation to benefits, and many other aspects, while, if rumour is right, there will have to be several measures dealing with medical questions relating to insurance. Yet never up till this moment have we had a clear and definite lead from the Government as to what is to be their general policy! I make these remarks at this moment because to some of us it appears that this question of insurance is being dealt with in a very piecemeal manner. We keep putting a patch on here, a patch on there, and a patch on somewhere else, whereas some of us would prefer, if possible, to see the whole garment. We want, in fact, to know what is the definite policy and intention of the Government. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer), in the course of his speech, referred to the Amendment as the cloth containing the dinner, and said he was more concerned with the dinner than with the cloth. In other words, the. hon. Member was suggesting that the Amendment was merely the wrapping, and he, for one, attached more importance to the Bill, which represented the dinner. I do not want this House to be under the impression that there is anything in the mind of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) that is opposed to dealing with unemployment in this country.
I want to say deliberately that that is not in the mind of the Approved Societies. What they are asking for here is for right recognition, and" I should deplore it beyond all words if there was any hostile feeling or spirit in this House in relation to those Approved Societies that have done so much in connection with National Health Insurance.
What was the position in 1911, because, after all, that is the basis of that which we are considering to-day? In 1911, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer presented to the country his measure of National Health Insurance, the original intention was that it should be worked through the friendly societies of the country. But pressure was brought to bear, as other organisations demanded to come in, and the door had to be thrown open. Section 23 of the Act of 1911 was therefore inserted making it possible for other societies to come in, not merely societies, but any body of persons, registered or established, corporate or otherwise under any Act of Parliament, and they were all enabled to take their part in administering National Health Insurance. All the approved societies that came into existence, and their name was legion, deserve the utmost consideration at the hands of this House, because they had to face a very difficult problem; they had to face a situation fraught with much anxiety. They have up to this moment administered National Health Insurance with very great satisfaction to the country. But in the course of the performance of that duty they have had to build up a certain organisation. Many men throughout the country have had to become full-time officials in order to administer the Act properly. The approved societies today are only asking, being as they are in full and entire agreement with the proposal for enlarging the unemployment benefit, that they shall have protection, that they shall be preserved, and that there shall be nothing in relation to the operation of this Act that shall lead to their undoing or to the whittling away or undermining of the work they have hitherto performed so satisfactorily. I remember how, in the Debates in this House on the Act of 1911, the great question raised was that of the liberty of the subject. Free choice was a fundamental doctrine voiced in this House. It was desired that insured persons coming in under the Act should have the utmost
free choice, free choice of approved society, power to enter a society of their own volition instead of being compelled to join any particular society, and free choice of their doctor. Surely many hon. Members do not forget the fierce fight which raged around the question of the panel doctor. The free choice of insured persons of their doctor was, in fact, to be preserved and not to be in any way affected, and they were also to have a free choice of chemist.
What we are asking the Minister in charge of this Bill is to consider how far he can carry that principle into the operation of this Act. I know he has received deputations representing the Approved Societies of the country and has treated them with much courtesy. He aways gives due regard to their representations. In his opening remarks today he was good enough to pay a tribute to the Approved and Friendly Societies, but he suggested that their fears were unfounded. At any rate he undertook to see that any ground for fear or apprehension was removed from the Bill. That is what we particularly desire. We are whole-heartedly in support of this enlargement of the unemployment benefit, but we do not want in the setting up of one organisation to do injustice to organisations already in existence. I venture to think that the functions of the Post Office will not be brought into use very frequently. I understand that they will only operate in remote areas, areas with scattered populations. But even there might it not be well worth the while of the Minister to consider how far some of the Approved Societies, which have ramifications in all parts of the country, in remote villages and hamlets and little combinations of dwellings, could be used with advantage in the operation of this Act? At any rate, representing, as I do, the great Friendly Society movement, I am resting assured in the promise made by the Minister of Labour that he will see to it that those representations which have been made have due regard paid to them and that by every means in his power he will preserve the Approved Societies. I am intensely hopeful that well-reasoned Amendments which may be put forward by those societies when the Bill is passing through Committee will receive very favourable and sympathetic consideration at his hands.

Captain REDMOND: I desire to join with my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin) in protesting against the exclusion of Ireland and appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to include it. My hon. Friend's voice has been the only one raised from Ireland in favour of her inclusion in the Bill. Strange to say, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) recently declared that every measure which was to be passed for this country was to be applied to Ireland. At any rate, that was his programme. Why did he not see that this measure was applied to Ireland? If he was able to procure an Education Bill, such as was proposed yesterday, in face of the fact that the Government is about to introduce partition proposals for Ireland, why was he not able, with the same skill and mastery over the Government, to have Ireland included in this Bill? Not only was he not able to have it included, not only did he not express his desire to have it included, but not a single Member of his party has asked to have it included.

Major O'NEILL: Hon. Members from Ulster have been rising in their places before the hon. Member came into the House, and of course we desire the extension of the Bill to Ireland as much as the hon. Member and his friends. So far we have not had an opportunity of expressing our opinion.

Captain REDMOND: I quite accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement that he is prepared to accept the inclusion of Ireland in this Hill, but I was in the House when my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin) rose and not a single Member from the other portion of Belfast or the Province of Ulster got up in his place.

Mr. McGUFFIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was present and heard me interpolate in the Debate. It is useless to deny it. Ho knows it perfectly well.

Captain REDMOND: I will not pursue the matter beyond saying that, my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin) was the first to ask for the inclusion of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Horne) gave a certain reason why Ireland should not be included. He said the so-called Home Rule proposals were about to be made by the Government. We know very well in Ireland what chance those proposals have of ever becoming law, certainly of ever being put into operation. Perhaps he is not as well acquainted with the circumstances
there as we are. That is a very shallow and lame reason for not including Ireland. He went on to say that if the linen industry desired to be included he would sympathetically consider the matter. I thoroughly accept his statement, but I do not see why any exception should be made in favour of one industry in one portion of Ireland. Why should not the whole of Ireland be included, and why should not every industry have the same opportunity of taking advantage of the Bill, if advantage is to be derived from it, as the linen industry? I represent one, of Ireland's chief ports, a port on whose quays there are employed a considerable number of various classes of labourers. There are casual labourers, regular dock labourers, seamen, and firemen—there is every class and condition of labour connected with the port. Also there are various industries in my constituency-the bacon-curing industry and margarine factories, and other forms of" industrial production. Why should not the employés in these industries have the same opportunities as the employés in the linen industry in Belfast? I do not represent an agricultural constituency, but the agricultural labourers in Ireland now are fairly well organised. They are a large portion of labour, and for the life of me I cannot, see why they should not have equal opportunities with any other form of labour, whether in this country or in Ireland. Therefore I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman now, because if he decides in Committee to allow Ireland to be included. it will not come with any grace on his part, but will more or less have been extracted from him by what we now know is the united Irish demand. He has stated that there is no reason why Ireland should not be included except that there are Government of Ireland proposals or the tapis. With regard to the details of the measure I am inclined to agree with a good many of the speeches made by my hon. Friends on these Benches as regards the amount proposed to be made up by the various contributions from the employés, the employers, and the Stare, that they do not amount to enough., 5s. is a ridiculous sum, having regard to the present conditions of the money market, to expect any man to be able to sustain a wife and family upon. After all, what did you give in that original out-of-work dole
which was nothing but a bribe at the last election to the demobilised soldiers and sailors? You did not offer them 15s. There was an election on and you gave them 29s., which they did not have to contribute to. Certainly these men who have to contribute towards this sum and who, through no fault of their own, are placed out of employment should get at least a certain sum that they could possibly subsist and rear their families on. As regards the question of contribution at all, I am in favour of it. A contribution is a good thing from the point of view both of the State and of the individual. I would put this question to the right hon. Gentleman When is the United Kingdom not the United Kingdom? We are told that measures should be passed in this House for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom. We do not want things to continue as they are. Until we get control of our own affairs we say that any measures which are passed for the benefit of all classes of people in this country should be equally given to the same classes of people in the country that we represent.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. McGUFFIN: I wish to offer the heartiest congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on the satisfactory manner in which he has introduced the Bill. It is a good Bill, and it goes a great length, but it hardly represents all we should wish. I was rather disappointed that it makes no attempt to provide work. After all, we do not want insurance benefits; we want work for those who are workless, and until you solve that situation you have not taken the first step in dealing with unemployment. I have seen many a time large groups waiting for the unemployment dole, which has been cancelled, and it was pitiable to see the employment to which those men were compelled to resort to in order to put in their time. It became demoralising from the fact that they no longer wished to work, and were quite content, when they could draw the dole, not to work at all. The amount was 29s. a week, and it was thought by the Government at that time to be quite necessary, and in view of the fact that the cost of living has gone up a great deal since then, this Bill should not provide anything less. Of course, you ask how is that to be done and where is the money to come from. That is a matter for the Cabinet to resolve, but all the same we feel
that it is necessary. On the basis of the contribution I suppose it could not be, but there is no reason why that limit of contribution should be observed. There is no reason, for instance, why the man should only con tribute threepence, the employer threepence, and the State twopence to produce 8d., which as a contribution will be equivalent to 15s. a week. You may in crease the contribution of the worker or of the employer in order that bigger benefits may result. It is a small matter to contribute a 1d. or 2d. a week more com pared with what it is to receive in actual benefit probably 50 per cent. than the Bill proposes. I understand the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) made a good speech, but I am afraid he arrogated to himself a position he was hardly entitled to enjoy in calling himself the only Labour representative from Belfast. He may call himself a Labour man in respect of sympathy, but he has never associated with a Labour organisation, and he certainly should not attempt to discount the presence and the representation of those to whom that business has been specially delegated in Belfast. There are three of us from Belfast who represent Labour interests and are prepared on all occasions to vindicate and support them in division.
We want to perpetuate the policy of our Leader the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) and our demand is that every benefit that is conferred in any Bill on England shall also be extended to Ireland. Why not? I fail to find any reason why that should not be, especially the reason assigned by the right hon. Gentleman. It cannot be on the ground that the Government intend to introduce a Home Rule Bill. Why should you attempt to do that and make any arrangements so far as Ireland is concerned if the introduction of the Home Rule Bill is the reason? If it is good for all sections of workers in England this Bill is equally good for them in Belfast, and we must have it. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will concede it, but we have a right to it. I ask him to do it in the interests of Belfast, because there is an industry there with which I am familiar, the linen trade, in which the workers are subject to great fluctuations of employment. They do not know when their machinery may be shut down and they may find
themselves unemployed. They are more threatened with that to-day by reason of the fact that there is less flax, and there is a probability of there being less flax. That is all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should take into consideration the necessity of making provision for those who may be thrown out of work and compelled to walk the streets.
The right hon. Gentleman proposes to pay less to a woman than to a man in the form of unemployment pay. He is only going to give 12s. a week to a female worker and 35s. to a male worker. I know that the woman workers preponderate in certain industries, and you find that in many instances they are widows who ought to be provided for. There is no female worker who would refuse to contribute 3d. instead of 2½d in order to enjoy the benefit that is to be extended to the male worker. The Bill, as a whole, is a good Bill, but it. would be marred in the first instance if it is nor extended to Ireland. We are thankful for the increased benefit that is to come to those workers in Ireland who are already under the Unemployment Acts, but we want those trades that have hitherto been excluded to be brought under the operation of the Bill. I join with my hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond), and my hon. Friend, the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), in placing before the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of considering this matter and extending the provisions of the Bill to Belfast and Ireland generally.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I gather that there is welcome unanimity in Ireland as to this Billl. There is no accounting for tastes. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will understand the indignation that possesses the people for whom I speak when a Bill like this is introduced. We all know perfectly well, the right hon. Gentleman as well as the rest of us, that the capitalist system depends upon unemployment. It is the existence of the unemployed which enables the capitalist system to work. I have heard it said in this House that the engineering industry could not be carried on without a 5 per cent. margin of unemployment. It is true that the existence of unemployment and the fact that you have unemployed
men on the market outside cuts down the wages of all those at work, and when we see a Bill like this introduced, which proposes to deal with unemployment, which in fact renders unemployment a little less startlingly horrible, but at the same time leaves the real results of unemployment still in operation, we feel that hypocrisy is the basis of all this legislation. All these Bills and most of the speeches to-night, except those coming from these Benches, have dealt with unemployment as if it was only a question of the man or woman out of work, the man who goes from factory gate to factory gate begging for a job and wearing out his boots and his soul trying to get work. That is bad enough; that is what we see, but the infinitely worse results of unemployment are not touched in the Bill. We do not see it and yet we all know that that is the real business behind this Bill.
This Bill is one to perpetuate unemployment, and to make it a little less horrible, so that the public conscience may not rise up against it. What we are fighting against on these benches is the system which drives down wages, through always having outside the factory gate men ready to take the jobs of those who are inside. That is the foundation of the law of wages. So long as there are two men after one job, and these men in order to exist have to get the job or starve, wages go down and sink towards the mere subsistence level. We know quite well that that law is caused by the existence of unemployed men, and these Bills that are brought up in order to make unemployment less horrible, not to perpetuate it, are not in the right direction at all. What we want is to stop unemployment, and to say that a man should get a job if he wants a job, and not give him a dole, whether it is a contributory dole or a public charity dole, in order to tide him over a bad time.
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman an illustration of how unemployment is caused. Everybody has different theories about unemployment, and it is time that we looked at the real causes of unemployment. Hon. Members may remember many years ago that there was a strike in North Wales. In form it was a strike, but in actual fact it was a refusal by the Lord Penrhyn of that day to allow 2,800 quarrymen to take slates out of his quarry. The strike went on for about a
year and a half, and attracted a great deal of attention, because the men went out with bands, and in seeking to keep up their funds they made desperate efforts in that direction all over the country. The result of that strike was that 2,800 quarrymen were out of work, but it had further results. Because these men were out of work the railwaymen who ran the trains from Bethesda to Port Penrhyn were thrown out of work and the railway was shut down. At Port Penrhyn the clerks in the warehouse who should have been invoicing the slates across the sea were thrown out of work. The seamen and firemen who should have been carrying the slates over the seas were walking the streets of Liverpool and Birkenhead. Because these men were out of work the shopkeepers at Bethesda and Port Penrhyn had a hard struggle to keep going or were driven into the bankruptcy court. Because the shopkeepers could not sell their goods across the counter they could not give trade to the wholesale houses or the manufacturers all over England and Wales, and this led to unemployment in these other trades because there was no demand for their goods, the people who wanted their goods being out of work and not able to afford to pay for them.
If you collect together in one vast crowd all the people thrown out of work by that one interference between man and nature, the man who wants work and the raw material with which alone he can work, you would have a typical demonstration of unemployed such as we shall have in increasing numbers in coming years, and the philosophers and politicians looking at that crowd will devise means for dealing with them. We shall have this proposal to give 15s. a week, as if that could settle the question. Some people will say that the evil is due to sunspots, others to over production, others to under consumption. Others will say that if the working classes were sober and industrious they would never be out of work, and that what is wanted is thrift and the purchase of war bonds, or that they should be sent out to Canada under the Arctic Circle where there is still some free land. Or we shall have farm colonies started and people employed digging up fields with spades, when it could be done more economically with the plough. We all know that all that is really necessary is that those 2,800 quarrymen should have
again access to their raw material, the land, and then everbody else, railway workers, shop assistants, seamen, farmers, manufacturers of hosiery, boots and hardware, would then fall into their natural places, doing the work for which they were best fitted. That is, if you give the primary trades the quarrying, mining, agricultural and building trades access to the raw material, the land, they will then join with the other trades who will complete the process of manufacture which they have begun. But the difficulty is that the primary trades are blocked at the source, and as long as they are blocked through not having access to raw material, the land, you will have unemployment.
Years ago I stopped for some time in South Africa after the war as a resident magistrate in the district of Ermelo, and I was the autocrat of that district. I was faced there by the unemployed problem, as the people came into the little town of Ermelo looking for work In that country there is no poor law, and if people have no work they have to go to gaol. Fortunately, all round this town there were 8,000 acres of what were called townland, and on these there was an opened up coal mine. I said to the unemployed, "There are some lands. I am not a lawyer, I do not know who has a right to turn you off them, but as long as I am hero in a position of power you shall have the free use of that land." There was this land, with no rent, rates or taxes. They went on that land. We were supplied with rations at that time. They got barbed wire from the block houses. They made themselves houses of those 40-pound biscuit tins with stones on top of them. They bought shovels and turned to and produced vegetables. They produced coal first in the coal minte. The result was that we got cheap coal and cheap vegetables, but the result was more far-reaching. About a fortnight afterwards I had a deputation of the manufacturers and builders of the town. They said, "How can you expect us to make this land fit for heroes to live in and to reconstruct Ermelo as long as the wages of unskilled labourers are £1 a day, and the rascals will not do anything for it?" It was simply that every workman in that town, being able to go there and do a day's work for himself without being robbed by the landlord, the capitalist or
the State, was not content to go on working on the old terms. He could look his master in the face. There you have fortunately a clean slate.

It being a Quarter past eight of the Clock, further Proceeding wax postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Orders of the Day — EX-POLICE OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: I beg to move
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the pensions of all police officers and men retired before the 1st day of April, 1919, should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost of living.
I am anxious by this means to call attention to the very urgent necessity of giving relief to our old and faithful servants who retired under the 1890 Police Act and before the 1st April, 1919, from which date the increased scale of pay and, consequently, the increased scale of pensions take effect. The House will recollect that in March last year the Home Secretary appointed a Departmental Committee to deal with the whole question of the conditions in the police force. It was generally admitted at that time that the unrest which was known to exist among the men was justified, and that the wages paid them, even with the war bonus, were not sufficient to meet the exceptional conditions of the time. That Committee, feeling the necessity of dealing with the wages question, decided to divide its Report into two parts, the first of which, dealing with the wages and, consequently, the pensions, was presented to the Home Secretary with as little delay as possible, and the Home Secretary, to the satisfaction of everybody, both in the force and out of it, zealously and expeditioustly met those recommendations and gave effect to them. The second part of the Report which. by the way, was presented some time ago—I for one regret that it: has not been circulated to Members of the House, although it was laid on the Table last night—dealt more particularly with the whole question of pensions, as well as with various administrative details. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will not think that I
am divulging anything which I ought not to divulge when I say that, so far as these pre-War pensions were concerned, the Committee were very anxious to report upon them, but that they were ruled out by the Home Secretary as not included within the terms of reference. Although not able to recommend any improvement in these pre-War pensions, I would add that during the course of our investigations a considerable amount of evidence was given before the Committee dealing with the matter, and so strong was the case that, while we had to state in the Report that the subject had been ruled out by the Home Secretary, we were very strongly of opinion that as a matter of right and justice the subject should be taken in hand at once. As the House knows, of these ex-police pensioners, very few are able to supplement their income by extra work. A very large number are old men and men who have been disabled in the service and have had to retire either from injuries or on medical advice. Those men depend entirely upon the meagre pension awarded to them under the 1890 Act.
I cannot help thinking that whether the Committee were or were not appointed to deal with the whole question of the conditions of the Police Force, it is a pity that this question was ruled out of order to be left to an occasion like this. I make this suggestion to the Home Secretary now—that so far as I am concerned, and I believe my hon. and gallant Friend will agree, we will ask the House to allow us to withdraw this Motion if the Home Secretary will consent to refer this particular question to his own Committee, the members of which are in London and can be called together at once. If he will refer it back to them to consider and report we will ask the leave of the House to withdraw this Motion at once. I venture to urge that that is a very reasonable proposal. I take it that the Home Secretary is not prepared to do that. It remains for us, therefore, to persuade hon. Members of this House to urge the Government to take into very serious consideration at once this particular matter. I was one of those who urged that this question did come within the reference to the Committee, but in face of the ruling we were able to do no more than express our opinion about it. If any proof be required to justify this Motion, surely it is to be found in the return of
all police pensioners prior to August 4th, 1914, which the Home Secretary gave to the House. Since that date and up to April 1st, 1919, I think the House may lake it, very few have retired on their pensions. The figure, so far as I am able to estimate it, is about 400. The figures in the Return may be taken, therefore, as roughly the total of ex-pensioners prior to the date to which this Motion refers. We have been told by those Members of the Government who, I can hardly think, are in earnest or are anxious to help these men, that it is going to cost the country a prodigious sum of money if we give them a large increase in their pensions. The total number of old pensioners prior to that date for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland is only 24,662. Of that total 21,000 are in receipt of pensions less than a maximum of 30s. a week, a very large number receive less than 20s., and I know a great number of cases where men are actually paid a small pension of something like 10s. to 15s. a week, on which they and their wives are expected to exist. 21,000 out of the 24,000 are in receipt of a mere pittance.
I have worked out the amount of money that would have to be paid if these men were given a 50 per cent. increase on existing pensions. If you take the maximum for each, that is to say, where it is stated that they receive from 20s. to 30s., you take 30s. as your figure, and where they say 20s. a week and under is paid, you take 20s. as the figure, and so on right through, you will find that, including Ireland, the total amount of a 50 per cent. increase in these pensions would not exceed £929,000, of which Ireland would take £211,000, making for England, Scotland and Wales a balance of £718,000, half of which, roughly, would fall on the localities and half on the State. I hope that that is not a very excessive amount to ask for when you are dealing with men who have devoted the whole of their lives to the service of the State and who, during that service, have contributed out of their weekly pay, which was none too good, towards the very pensions which were allotted to them. These pensions were allotted before the War, based on the old rate of wages received. It would be unreasonable to expect men, after the War, to be content with pre-War wages, and am I asking too much that pre-War pensions should be deemed as unreasonable after
the War and that these men should be given something with which to end their lives, if not in comfort, at all events, without great anxiety?
These pensions under the 1890 Act were fixed at a scale which was intended to allow those men when they retired to live in comparative comfort, at all events, without the anxiety as to how they would get their bare existence, and are we going now to attempt to say, as was said the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if you deal with these old pensioners you would be practically re-opening a bargain that was made some years ago? Technically that is so, but have the Government not re-opened their bargains and their contracts? Was not the contract with the men before the Committee was appointed that they should serve for a certain pay? The Committee recommended a re-opening of their bargains, and the Home Secretary, all thanks to him for it, did as the Committee recommended, broke the previous contracts, and gave them better conditions of wages. It is said that the police could not be dealt with separately, but why not? Everybody imagined that they were included in the reference to that Committee, and why they were taken out I cannot understand. There is one thing very certain—if they had not been ruled out by the Home Secretary their case would have been dealt with by the Committee, and there would have been no necessity for this Motion to night. We are told they cannot be dealt with separately, and that the Civil Service must be dealt with as a whole, but are other civil servants as poorly paid as these people—15s. a week?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes, 10s. 6d. a week.

Sir J. REMNANT: Then the sooner their case is remedied the better. I hope my hon Friend does not attempt to seek to prove that these retired policemen should not be dealt with when the oppotunity occurs. When you are saving drowning or shipwrecked people, surely your first endeavour is to save those who cannot swim before you save those who can keep afloat for a bit.
Then I would ask the House to remember that there is a second lot of men who have retired on their pensions, and who of their own free will rejoined.
They were retired as late as the 31st March, the very day before the new scale came in, at fourteen days' notice. Surely it was known that the committee which was appointed to deal with the conditions was sitting, and everybody understood that there was not contentment with the scale of wages. Those men who were retired one day before the new scale came in have a very special grievance at being treated in the way they are. I have cases innumerable, and you will find sergeants retiring one day later than inspectors and drawing very much larger pensions than the inspectors who retired just before them. I am very glad the now men have got the increase, but I want to help those who by sheer bad luck are reduced almost to the starvation stage. There is a constable retiring on the 1st April found to be in receipt of a pension not only far greater than that of one of his own rank, but considerably greater than that of an inspector who retired a little before that date, and a sergeant who retired after the 1st April was found in receipt of a pension far greater than that of a superintendent who retired a little before that date. The Government is supposed to be a model employer of labour. I venture to put it to the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, can they claim that description if they are going to treat these men this way and put them off from what everybody considers is fair treatment?
I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question in this House whether, in the event of this pension question being raised in the Committee that was appointed, fresh legislation would be necessary in order to carry it into effect, and he said "No." Therefore it is up to him, if he wishes to deal with this question, and I should like to hear from him to night whether, besides sympathy, which I admit he has extended freely to these men, he really intends to take action to try and improve their position. He can deal with it if he likes, I honestly believe. His position, if I may say so, is to me a little curious. The Eastbourne Watch Committee were anxious to help two very hard eases that came before them, and they applied to the Home Secretary to know whether they might do so. He said, so it is reported, that he had not the power to move. They then passed a resolution
urging him to take steps in order to enable him to do so. Chat is the negative. You get on the other side the question of the City of London Commissioner. The Committee there dealing with police matters refused to increase from £1,700 to £2,000 a year the salary of the Chief Commissioner. They urged and claimed that he was getting £1,700 a year, and, in addition, a pension from the Liverpool Pension Fund of £850. You would have thought that was a matter that the City Authority might be left to deal with themselves, but the Home Office writes to know the reason for their having refused to increase the salary from £1,700 to £2,000. It is a little difficult to understand all this, to be told at one moment that the Home Secretary had not the power to deal with these questions and at the next moment to rind the Home Office wanting to know the reason for a refusal to increase a large salary of a chief officer.
Where there is a will there is a way, and if the Government really mean what they express, that is, sympathy for these men, they can take action at once. If they do not, they can block motions such as this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day said that he was bound to pay attention to the general feeling of this House. I hope the Home Secretary will consent to the Whips being taken off to-night and that the House will be allowed to be consulted free from any influence of the Whips or the Government, and to express a clear opinion on this matter. I hope sincerely the Home Secretary, at all events, will feel that the general opinion of this House is in favour of instant action in these distressing cases. My hon. and gallant Friend, who will second this Motion, spoke the other day in the debate to which I have just referred. He said that surely this was a debt of honour. It is a debt of honour, and, so long as our debts of honour are not paid, it is a strange thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down to this House and tell us that all is well and that our balance sheet is sound. I hope the House will be allowed to divide on this Question, and I hope it will say in no uncertain way that in its opinion this Motion is one deserving of its support.

Captain LOSEBY: I beg to second the Motion. After the eloquent and forcible
speech that has just been delivered, it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a few minutes, more particularly as I inflicted my views upon this particular question only a few days ago, and I can only repeat the arguments that I then ventured to use, because it seems to me that this is a simple matter of equity and logic, and it either appeals to us or it does not appeal to us. I am very anxious to be perfectly frank with this House, and so I will commence by taking the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at his word, and, for the sake of argument, I will grant that it is not possible to treat these pensioners apart from all those servants of the State, the value of whose services was appraised prior to 1914. For my own part, I am prepared to acknowledge that any logic there may be in our proposal applies equally to them all. At the same time, I do think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought in this Motion was well advised in asking the House to consider this particular question separately, because I cannot help thinking that it should consider first of all the cases of those people whose position is the most difficult, and in regard to whom delay will have the most serious consequences. Those people in receipt of payment for continuing service have a weapon in their hands—a weapon which, for my own part, I hope they will not hesitate to use, a weapon which will enable them to force their just demands before our attention. In these days of collective bargaining the pensioner stands quite defenceless. He has no trade union behind him. I cannot imagine the machinery of the Triple Alliance being threatened on his behalf. He has no labour to withhold, and he relies on our sense of equity and justice alone.
At the same time, I do most cordially and respectfully agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in these days of financial difficulties, if hon. Members of this House do think that such a matter as this is ripe for reform, then it is their duty to say so in no mistaken terms, and to accept responsibility for any expenditure involved, and relieve the Government from responsibility, which it. is not fair to ask them to undertake. This Motion asks this House once and for all to tackle this problem created by
the decrease in the value of money. It asks the House to sit as a tribunal, to call its witnesses, to examine the Facts and to pass judgment upon which the Government can act. This problem is one which can be trifled with no longer. If I were presenting my case before this tribunal, I would commence by recognising that it would be necessary to ask it to satisfy its mind upon three points. I am only repeating myself, I acknowledge. First of all, is there anything in the nature of a moral obligation here disclosed? Can it be liquidated in the terms of money? Secondly, in these times of intense financial difficulty, are we entitled, is it necessary for us, to accept responsibility for an obligation which, I frankly must acknowledge, cannot be put higher than a moral obligation; and, thirdly, what is the penalty for default if we fail to bring in just reform in such a matter as this? My first question is, Is there a moral obligation here disclosed? I cannot imagine anyone but a trifler venturing to argue that there is not a moral obligation in this particular case. He can say "Yes, we contracted for a sum of money and that sum of money is being paid." That is strictly true if we are endeavouring to baulk our moral obligations.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour to answer me on this point. What, as a matter of fact, was done at the time the pensions were assessed? I assert without fear of contradiction that the pensions were assessed with a certain definite object: to provide a certain standard of living in accordance with the value of services rendered; in one case, the police, to provide the bare cost of existence: in another case to provide a contribution towards existence only: and in the third case they were calculated to provide a reasonable standard of life. Let me, first of all, deal with the obligation. What is it? The obligation is to my mind perfectly clear. To provide a fair standard of living at which we assessed these men according to their value at the time they were awarded their pensions. Can that be translated into terms of money? I respectfully suggest that it can be liquidated exactly in the manner which has been adopted by the Government in another case. I would remind the House what the House itself did in the case of disabled soldiers. Under the Barnes Warrant the pensions
of disabled soldiers were, in 1917, assessed at a certain figure. In 1919 these figures were found to be entirely inappropriate. Therefore, the House put up a sliding scale automatically to readjust the pensions of the soldiers, and this will come into operation at an early date.
In the case of the police, I suggest that what should be carried out in equity is that on December 30 in each year a figure should be published, as in the case of the soldiers, representing the rise in the cost of living since 1914, when the pensions were last stabilised, and 1920. I would urge that scheme, because it appears to me that it is something more than foolish at the present time definitely to fix rates which, if my definition of the endeavours of pensioners is correct, must be wrong in two or three years' time. It would be a most optimistic economist who would argue that there is going to be permanent stabilisation in the course of the next ten years. It naturally operates that at the present time, provided the House decided to go to that extreme of equity—not of reform—of putting the police back again into the position of 1914, that a figure of something like 120 per cent. would be published, and that that would operate on all pensions assessed prior to 1914. That is strictly logical and strictly equitable. If the House is not prepared to go to the logical extreme which I am trying to advocate, I cannot imagine how and by what argument they would persuade themselves to refuse to do it in the case of pensions which provide for bare existence only.
9.0 P.M.
It would be possible, for example, I respectfully suggest, to put into effect a sliding scale which would operate in full on all pensions, say, of £1 a week and less, which would operate, say, as to a 75 per cent., rise on a figure of £2 a week or less, and 50 per cent. on figures of £3 a week and less. Under that scheme we should ensure this—and for my own part I would be almost satisfied—that faithful servants of the State who had been promised, at any rate, a bare existence were not destitute, and that, I say, is something. These points must be argued, because certain opinions are abroad and in the House which are intended deliberately to foster in certain quarters the opinion that we cannot afford to pay our debts. We cannot, it is said, afford to
discharge our debts of honour; we are incapable of meeting our moral obligations. I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend has made out a case for a moral obligation. Are we capable of meeting it? To that I reply it all depends upon our determination, our sincerity, and our honesty to meet our debts of honour. I can understand full well any number of quibbles being put up upon the subject. I agree that if we in this House find it necessary that we must retain in this country extremes of wealth and allow those extremes to pass on untouched; I agree that if we desire to carry out a purely opportunist policy; if we desire to fool the people, and to persuade them that we are anxious for real, genuine reforms, when we are nothing of the kind, then, I agree, it would be most ill-advised to grant this reform, because I agree perfectly well other moral obligations will follow. But if you ask me: can we afford to meet and discharge proved obligations, then I say that the matter is not worthy of argument. I will only say this: when this House approaches the Treasury with an approved Agreement, the onus is upon the Treasury to sanction or reject. If they are prepared to say, as I have heard suggested, in regard to similar reforms, that we are practically insolvent, then the time is for us to meet that argument, and it if not worthy of this country. There is a point which appeals to me personally very much, and that is the penalty for default. It appears to me that the first thing that will happen is that if the Members of this House pursue the ostrich policy of putting their heads in the sand and refusing to recognise existing facts; if we refuse to carry the reforms to which we are pledged, the first thing that will happen will be the breaking up of this combination of supporters of the Coalition Government in which many of us most earnestly believe, and in which we are yet very far from having lost confidence. How did we come here? We went to the country, and I think this point is worthy of the consideration of hon. Members, at a time shortly after the War, and why were we returned? Mainly because we promised our support to a leader in whose vision and imagination and resolution the people of this country believed. Amongst his
supporters were members of other parties, but the War had altered our consciousness and we were determined, sincere, and anxious to carry out the reforms to which we were pledged. Had it been otherwise, we should not have been here, and can it be possible, faced as we are with the first difficulties, that we should hesitate to follow a lead which is being given boldly and with resolution?
I can only say that if we are so foolish and do not recognise that we are here and what we are here for, then I am as certain as I stand here that we shall go back to the obscurity from which we came, and a good thing too Unless we recognise the spirit that is growing up, unless we talk honestly and in a straightforward manner and recognise why we are here and what we stand for, our alliance will not bear those fruits which I most sincerely hope for. I hope the House will forgive me for having talked so long, but with all my faults I am sincere upon this particular point. Here is a reform clearly indicated from which the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape upon the plea of poverty and that alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that if this House insisted upon reforms clearly and in unmistaken language, it was necessary for the House to take the responsibility upon itself. I believe that this House is prepared to take the responsibility for this particular expenditure, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, realising that there is a chance at any rate of this House taking from him a responsibility that we do not ask him to undertake, will ensure, at any rate, that to-night we may have an opportunity of giving our free and unfettered judgment, and if he will leave this matter to the unfettered opinion of this House I am sure my hon. Friend who proposed this Motion will be perfectly satisfied.

Sir JAMES BRUTON: I am addressing the House for the first time, and I hope I shall receive the same indulgence which is generally given to a new Member. Upon the question before the House I join with the mover and seconder of this Motion in urging the Home Secretary to grant the request contained in this Resolution. I know the time at our disposal is limited, and I do not want to take up time which other hon. Members wish to utilise. I have one or two cases which I should like
to bring before the attention of the House. I know one case of a man who has given thirty-six years of service to the police force, who is receiving the pension of £1 2s. 8d. per week. He and his wife have brought up eight children, and consequently they could not save anything. What is the value of that, pension to him?
I know of another case of an inspector with thirty-two years' service, and his pension is £1 5s. 7½d. per week. On the last day of the month he pays £1 10s. for rent and he tries to exist on the balance. I appeal to hon. Members that this is a state of things that ought not to be allowed to continue. Surely these men, who have given the best part of their lives to the service of the State, ought not to be treated in this way. One of these men is seventy years of ago, and it is impossible for him to do anything to increase his income. The cost of the necessaries of life have advanced considerably, and this man is in the predicament that he must have these necessaries and pinch himself in order to obtain them, or go without. Surely this is a question which should be met generously, and I hope when the Home Secretary gets up to reply he will turn a favourable ear to what, has been said in regard to a body of men who justly deserve what they ask for, and which I hope the House will grant.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I very much regret that the Home Secretary has not seen his way to accept, this motion. I shall confine my remarks within a few minutes for the simple reason that I do not want to see it talked out. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to refer the matter to the Desborough Committee, then I shall be reluctantly compelled to vote against the Government. I should like to place before the House a few figures with regard to the police pensions in Manchester and Sal-ford. The maximum pre-war pension of a police constable was £1 1s. per week; that of a sergeant £1 8s. 8d., and that of an inspector £2. Under the award of 1919 the maximum pension of a constable became £.3 3s. 4d., that of a sergeant £3 18s., and that of an inspector from £4 10s. to £5. If you take the first figures under the award of 1890, and add the increased cost of living, which, according to the last figures of the Board of Trade is 125 per
cent., you arrive practically at the pensions given on April 1st, 1919. It is a scandal that in the majority of cases the police, who have served the public and the country so well, are not only deprived of their pensions, but actually have not the means to subsist, because no one in this House can say for one moment that it is possible for a man to keep his wife and family on £1 1s. per week. The thing is absurd. I would like to go into the case of a man who served for 24 years in the Metropolitan Police. He was then injured and had to leave the force. He recovered in a very few months, and he is now serving as Inspector of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. He asked for leave to join the force for an extra two years in order to qualify for this increased pension. I put the case before the Home Secretary, and he treated it with great sympathy, but he informed me that it was out of his power to do anything for him. Of course, one can quite understand that if he made an exception in this case he would have to do it in all. That is one way how this matter is operating so unfairly.
I can only imagine the Home Secretary offering two reasons why he cannot grant some increase on the pre-War pension. He may tell us that the finances of the country will not permit it. I quite agree that the Government should be as stringent as possible in cutting down expenses in every Department of the State, but they must find some other way of cutting down their expenses than practically trafficking in the health and existence of these old servants of the State. The other reason which I fancy he may advance is that we cannot deal with this point alone. The Civil Service are in the same position, and they also are asking for an increase in their pensions. That argument will not do for me, because I say that they are equally entitled to an increase. In many cases some of their pensions are even worse, if possible, than those of the police. I include teachers in the Civil Service. If that reason be given by the right hon. Gentleman, I say that it will not do for me, because they also are entitled to it. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that this case wanted to be argued. In my opinion, no argument is necessary. It is either right or wrong to make it possible, not only for these men to live in comfort, but to exist. If it be
right to make it possible for them to exist, then the Government ought to come forward and say: "We will increase these amounts."

Mr. MURCHISON: I wish in a very few sentences to support the Resolution which has been so fully placed before the House by the mover and the seconder, and I hope that the Government will see their way to remedy this very real and legitimate grievance of a large number of men throughout the country. It is right that they should remove this grievance if they can, and they can do so by the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money. A case which I will give in illustration came to my knowledge a few weeks ago. I gave the facts to the Home Department, but I was not able to get any promise that they would consider the matter. It is the case of an ex-police superintendent at Hull who, by chance, retired just two days before the Commission's decision came into force. Had he remained another three days in the force, he would now be drawing £158 per year more in pension. There are many similar cases throughout the country, and, if the Government would only consider the matter, I am sure that they could remedy this serious grievance. This man wished to retire in 1918, but he could not do so because of the Police Emergency Act of 1915. He bad a very good civilian job offered him, and then when 1919 came he retired, but, owing to the advice of his Chief, he sent in his notice just at the wrong time. I am informed that the Desborough Committee have already decided that they cannot reconsider the matter. If it has not passed out of their control altogether, I do ask the Home Secretary to urge them to go into the matter thoroughly; but, if it has passed out of their control, he can easily deal with it and at the same time he can feel assured that he will not be involving the country in any serious expenditure.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: It is not my intention to detain the House at any length upon this question, not because it is not possible to say a good deal in regard to it, but because I feel that the facts appertaining to it are well known practically to every Member. I rise mainly with the object of associating the party with which I am connected whole-heartedly with this Motion, and I think it is right that the
Home Secretary should understand and realise how extensive is the feeling in the House that something ought to be done for these men. I would like to ask him whether he is prepared to suggest that there is not a real grievance, having regard to the smallness of the pensions of these men, small in many cases because they were injured in the Force before they had served for any great length of time, and some of them possibly injured to such an extent as to prevent them from taking up other employment and materially adding to their income. I would like to ask, further, whether it is felt by the Government that this grievance can in any way diminish in the course of time. At the present moment we have to admit that the difficulties of life which specially constitute this grievance are on the increase, and it has been indicated that those circumstances, in so far as they are liable to change in the near future, will gradually become worse. That being so, it is no argument to say that we can afford to delay this matter, because the grievance will become intensified, and a moral obligation will rest upon the House to give the fullest consideration to this matter. These men have nobody to whom they can appeal but this House. They are not in a position to protect themselves in any other way, and, even if it can be argued that this House has no legal obligation towards them, then certainly we are justified in saying that there is a very strong moral obligation which cannot be considered to be less binding than a legal obligation would be. I was hoping that the suggestion put forward by the mover of this Resolution would have been accepted by the Government. I am certain that there is no question upon which a Vote of the House would show greater unanimity than the question of doing something for these retired officers. We know that it cannot be done without an expenditure of money; but we have been told repeatedly from the Government Benches that in the expenditure of money this House is the final arbiter, and must always accept the responsibility. In this case I feel certain that the House is prepared to accept the responsibility, and to do so in the full knowledge that we cannot adjust the circumstances of these men without at the same time admitting the obligation to do something similar towards other
men who have retired from other branches of the public service. I would like to point out the irony of a situation in which men who, simply because they served their country years ago, and who may have served just as faithfully as those who are now serving and are about to retire on their pensions, find themselves compelled to live on an income, in the form of a pension, which in many cases is less than half what is now granted to men who are merely retiring on the minimum rate of wages paid to the police at the present time. That is a condition of things which cannot be tolerated, and I do hope that upon this question we shall have sympathetic consideration on the part of the Home Secretary, if not in the direction of making a full concession hero to-night, at least in the direction of giving the House a chance to express its mind upon the matter, or, if that is not possible, of adopting the other suggestion, namely, that the Committee which has been dealing with the condition of the police service shall be given the fullest opportunity to consider the matter in all its aspects, and to present a report to the House which can form the basis of another discussion, and, I hope, of the acceptance of the principle contained in the Resolution.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: I think the whole question hero is one of principle, and it is because it is based on principle that I fear we shall not succeed in the Lobbies to-night if we go there. I do not want to say anything antagonistic to the Home Secretary or the Government. Did I feel that by remaining seated we should be more successful than we are likely to be, I should never have risen at all. I want the House to appreciate the point that the Government have never of their own volition done a generous act. They have repeatedly done foolish actions when driven to them by organised threats, by fear of the consequences. Surely this is not the first occasion since 1914 that citizens of this Empire have faithfully served it. We have all gone mad in this country in giving freely and generously to the men who served in this War, totally forgetting those men who equally have served, not only in previous wars, when our honour, if not our national existence, was at stake, but in days of peace, entering into contracts with the State when the pound was worth twenty shillings, contributing to a
general fund a part of a pound which was worth twenty shillings, to come back here, when their pension time arrived, and claim part of a pound which is worth 6s. 2d. It is because the whole thing does rest on an honourable undertaking of the Government that I fear we shall not be successful. But one thing I do know, that if only hon. Members here will show a little organisation, especially having regard to the position of the Coalition candidate at Paisley to-day, we may possibly get, by threatening the Government with the loss of their own existence, a square deal for these men who cannot organise and put their case themselves.
I am deeply interested in the matter of the police. Having been a policeman myself for three years, I have a certain fellow feeling with them. Having paid to superannuation funds a considerable proportion of my pay as a policeman, I realise that the Home Office have in hand a very considerable amount of money received from men who have contributed to these funds and have never drawn a penny from them at all. Therefore, I speak with a certain amount of bias. The Government, if they wish to do justice in this matter, can do it, and I will suggest a way. Let them bear this new load, this great financial burden, which I am certain will be the sum and substance of the right hon Gentleman s reply. Everyone comes to this House screaming for economy. The papers are howling for economy. If you want to come back to this House, you must remember you will have to face your constituents, and they will say to you, "Did you squander public money, or did you not?" I, for one, am perfectly willing to give an account upon this matter, at any rate. May I say to the Home Secretary, let him start this economy of public money on the official and efficient administration of the various Departments of State, and not try to save the public money by bleeding those who have served the State in the past

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: I do not propose to criticise in any way the admirable speech made by the Mover of this Resolution, but I do hope that the case of those police who retired before 1914 is not going to be met by laying too much stress upon those who retired after 1914. As far as I am concerned, the remarks I have to make will apply, not only
to the police, but to all other pre-War State pensioners—not only the Civil Service, but the Army and the Navy as well. I remember being in the House when the Chancellor said some time ago that if there was no more expenditure therefore there would be no more taxation. I should be very pleased to be taxed more in order to see these pensioners getting proper pensions, and I believe every other Member of the House would do the same, and the country as well. I asked the Chancellor some time ago what the cost of the extra pensions would be, and his answer was that it would probably be about six millions. I think it would be money very well spent. These people are a weak section of the community, from the point of view that they had no opportunity of putting money by for a rainy day or of providing for old age. Most of them are too old to work, and certainly that is so of those in the Army and a great many of those in the Navy. It may be argued that the rise in prices is temporary and that they will come down, and that, therefore, there is no need to increase the pension. I believe that that view is entirely erroneous, and that high prices have come to stay for a considerable time. Another point of view is that the Rent Restriction Act will shortly be relaxed, and a great many of these pensioners, who are starving themselves now in order to live in their cottages, will have to give them up. I came across a case the other day of a man and woman extremely badly off, who were starving themselves in order to live in their cottage, and who were getting thinner visibly week by week and month by month. I am of opinion that the Government are morally bound to see that the pre-war pensioners get their proper due.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I think the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman who has raised this very important public question. I hope to show that it is not merely as a matter of justice to certain helpless individuals, but a matter also of public safety and expediency that this question should be dealt with by the Government. The position of the Government in regard to the question of pensions is exceedingly difficult to understand. In the matter of old age pensions, the Government first of all, notwithstanding the plea of economy, gave a gratuitous allowance of half a crown
per week. They then appointed a Committee of Inquiry, and on the last day but one of last Session passed a Bill increasing the old age pensions to 10s. per week, and all the ideas of economy that had been put forward with regularity were thrown to the wind. The matter was so very urgent that it must be dealt with at all costs and in all circumstances, and it was so dealt with because the sympathy of the House then, as the sympathy of the House to-night, was in favour of the helpless and the weak. That was a wise and proper action on the part of the Government a few weeks ago. On the other hand, we find that the Government during the War commandeered the services of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of Civil Service pensioners and other retired Government servants, and brought them back to work under war conditions, and then when the War was over threw them out and refused to count for pension time the years of service during the War, during which these men had been compelled, often at great personal sacrifice, to give for the benefit of the State. They were told that those years must not be added to the years of other service to qualify for increased pensions on the ground of rules and regulations. This was done, although the cost of food upon those pensioners is just as great as upon other pensioners whose years of qualification happened to be identical years during the War when those older men had to serve. To-day I asked a question with regard to a large number of postal servants who have had this experience, and the financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I do not see in his place at the moment, said that the regulations could not be transgressed and that these particular men could not receive any allowance in regard to an increase of pension.
Let me examine this question on the double basis of justice and expediency. With regard to the question of justice, why do you give pensions at all. You do so as a recognition of past service to the community and a recognition to those who are no longer able to work. Even the old age pension was founded on the principle that the people concerned were too old to work, and that the community that they had served honestly should give them honourable succour in their old age. If the money that you allot to those people is given from the
idea of justice alone, still more is it necessary to make this allowance on the ground of expediency. It has not been money merely you have allotted in the past to the various pensioners, but money's worth. That is the essence of the whole matter. Did you in the past allot to pensioners of all classes merely a sum of money or something in the shape of money to buy the means of living? If you examine this question fundamentally I think you must arrive logically at the conclusion that the allowance allotted to pensioners was an allowance based on money's worth rather than money according to a fluctuating value. The money that is now being given is less than half the value of the worth contracted to be given to the various pensioners. I claim, and I do not hesitate to say that I am speaking logically when I do so, that the pensioner has as much inherent right to an increase of the money amount given to him as the wage earner. True ho has not the same power of enforcing his demand, but though he has not the power of going on strike, at least he has the power of referring to this House which never failed, I venture to say, in the long run to do justice to those who have a grievance. So much for the question of justice.
May I turn for a moment or two to the question of expediency? There never was a time—and no one knows this better than the Home Secretary—in the history of this country when the loyal service of a contented police and constabulary was more important to the stability of the community. You have had strikes and lock-outs, and you do not look forward with any confidence to the time when strikes and lock-outs will cease. Whatever be your sympathy in regard to them, at least all classes are agreed that you must "keep the ring." You must avoid giving an opening for direct action. You must have constitutional methods which may include strikes and lock-outs as well as Debates in this House. You must have the ring preserved for the com batants to settle their grievances accord-to rules and regulations. Settle your trade disputes by argument, and ensure strong and reliable protection by means of a police upon which you can rely against Bolshevik methods of direct action and of enforced labour. Why did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary increase
the pay of the police not long ago? That pay was put up very considerably and it was put up because it was realised that the position of the policeman must be made clear and definite, and practically impregnable as regards his means of livelihood. That was done on the grounds of justice, it was also an act of expediency. If you allow the police to know, broadly speaking, as a result of this Debate, that their old age is reasonably provided for, if you agree in regard to widows' pensions that they too are in a very unsatisfactory condition, if you let the police know further that you secure to them pensions on a scale commensurate with their wages, then you will have a police force which will be contented and strong, and the agitator amongst the police will have no more chance. If my right hon. Friend will accompany me next Sunday morning to Hampstead Heath, the chances are ten to one that the orators who address the crowd from the rostrum there will be found to be police officers who are out of work on account of recent strikes. If you want to do away with that agitation—I do not believe it is of any importance now—if you want to do away with the possibility of propaganda amongst the police, then remove these grievances as thoroughly as you removed the grievances of the men in regard to pay. The offer of my hon. and gallant Friend, who moved this Motion, was a very reasonable one. He pointed out that the whole cost would be less than a million a year if his suggestion was granted. I think he was almost too moderate in that He made an alternative offer to my right hon. Friend that, if he did not see his way to grant the request in the Motion, he should allow the matter to be referred again to the Committee without the restrictions upon it which prevented that Committee finding in its favour previously. That seems to be a very reasonable suggestion, and I do strongly hope that, as a result of this Debate, the right hon. Gentleman will do the right thing for these distressed police pensioners, not only as a matter of justice, but also as an act of expediency and of good judgment in the interests of the community at large.

Mr. GILBERT: I rise as a London Member to ask the Home Secretary to favour ably consider the Motion now before the
House. One reason why in the old days, when police were recruited, you got such good men to join the force—men who served quite loyally for 7 days a week and 24 hours per day, because a policeman is always on duty—was that they knew that when they retired they were guaranteed a pension which would keep them in their old age. In view of the very great hardships a great number of these men suffer—I am referring to ex-officers of the London police force—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Motion from the point of view, that one of the reasons why he got such good men in the police force and such loyal and devoted service at all times was that they knew when they retired they would have sufficient money to live upon and would be kept from want in their old age. The value of money has now altered considerably. When the Government quite recently adopted the recommendations of the Desborough Committee it was a very great hardship that the men who retired before the date, partly by accident of date, had their pensions worsened. In a great many cases a few months' extra service would have meant a very much better pension, but unfortunately the men were compelled to retire because of ill-health or age. In addition to that, the pensions granted them now have considerably less value. The maximum salary of a constable before 1914 was 40s. The present maximum under the Desborough Committee for a constable is £4 15s., or, with a lodging allowance of 10s., 5 guineas per week.
I ask the House to consider the difference in the pensions now payable to men who served under both conditions. Surely men who served before the Desborough Commission reported deserve the thanks of the country just as much as the men who are serving at the present time. It has often been said that these men can have other work, but, from a Home Office return published on the 20th December, 1919, it would appear that 8,472 of them are turned 60 years of age. The Police Pensioners were called in during War time. It is true they were paid salaries in addition to their pensions, but, having gone out at the end of their War service, they are in a very much worse position with regard to taking any other kind of employment. They are mostly elderly men, and, naturally, after the War, the kind of light employment which that type
of man can do is now being given to wounded men or men who have served in the War. I am convinced, and I am certain other London Members will agree with me, that this is a very great hardship to a great number of men who have served London and other cities very loyally in the past, and I hope the Home Secretary will most favourably consider it, and see if he cannot do something to relieve these men in their old age.

Sir F. BLAKE: I rise as a Member of the Desborough Committee to confirm in every particular the statement made by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Remnant) with regard to the disappointment that we experienced on that Committee when we found we were not able to deal with the case of the old-age pensioner. We were told it was not within the terms of our reference. Notwithstanding that, we showed our sympathy by making the very strongest recommendation it was possible to make that the Government should take up this question with expedition and give these men justice. I am aware that this is a part of a very much larger question, but it is one which the action of the Government has brought into special prominence, because it has done so by its acceptance of the proposal of our Committee with regard to the pay of the serving police and the vastly improved pension scheme which men who retire after the new provisions come into operation can claim, and that has brought into special prominence the unfortunate position of those men who do not benefit as their confrères do. While the Committee was sitting, we had evidence of the distressing conditions under which even constables on full pay were struggling to maintain themselves and their families, and we also had the most piteous appeals from retired constables whose scanty pensions scarcely enabled them to obtain the necessaries of life. There is greater unanimity on this question than has been shown in this House during this Session, and it would be a misfortune for me to stand in the way of that Division which I hope we are going to have and which will confirm that unanimity. In joining in this appeal I am pleading the cause, along with all other Members who have thought about the matter, of a body of men whose loyalty and devotion to the community deserve a fitting recognition at the hands of the public, whose servants we are, a public which is not unmindful
of the value of the services which have been so willingly rendered by the men on whose behalf I have been speaking.

10.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: Everyone in this House and everyone in the country will desire that we should return to the position in which we were before the War. There are undoubtedly a large number of people at present who are suffering from the effects of that war. There are no doubt some who have succeeded by various means in inducing the Government and other people to put them in the position in which they were before the War. They are by no manner of means the whole community, and there are a large number of people who are at present suffering most intensely, not only because their incomes are smaller than they were before the War, but because they have to bear a very large proportion of the burden, in the shape of taxation and rates, which has been put upon the nation. I should be the last person who would desire, if it was in our power, to prevent anyone from occupying the position which he did occupy before that very unfortunate War, but we have to consider where all this money is coming from which is going to give to everyone the same means of livelihood as you had before the War. There is undoubtedly a great tendency for people to say, "Jones has got something, why should I not have it?" It reminds me of the parable in the New Testament where our Saviour told the story of a man who engaged a certain number of men to work for a penny a day for the whole day. He also engaged a certain number of men to work for an hour, also for a penny a day. At the end of the day the men who had worked during the whole of the day objected. I need not go on any further, because everyone who has read the New Testament knows the rest. That parable should be read by everyone and should be read very often at present. It is no argument to say that because A has got something, B should have it too. There are a certain number of people—I do not blame them; it is only human nature—who are desirous of benefiting themselves at the expense of other classes. There is no place to which the Government or anyone else can go and pick up sovereigns. It is true there is a printing press where they can print Bradbury notes, but that means bankruptcy, and I do not suppose that anyone,
however anxious he may be for the acceptance by the Government of this Motion, would desire such a catastrophe as the bankruptcy of the country.
May I remind the House of what occurred so recently as the 13th of this month? On the 13th February, which was the last day of the Debate on the Address, an Amendment was moved pointing out to the Government the great necessity of economy. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in reply:—
As to civil expenditure, I invited the House last autumn to consider what was the possible field for retrenchment or for criticism. I now invite hon. Members to do the same. Look at our Budget. Pensions are £124,000,000. Is there a single Member of the House who would cut the amount down? Not one. There is a great number of Members who would urge the Government to increase it. One hon. Member spoke in that sense to-day. He made the proposal that we should revise the pensions of people who had retired before the present War on the basis of post-war value and costs. Those people who were pensioned before the War have suffered profoundly when their means were small.
We are all agreed upon that. He went on to say:—
But they have suffered in common with immense numbers of their countrymen; with all who were living on fixed incomes; and who had not succeeded in increasing their earnings. Why should the State, whose bargain with them was complete—"[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Sir F. BANBURY: I shall be prepared to answer that criticism later—
and which would never have thought of reducing the pension against them if the cost of living had fallen, now be called on to reopen the bargain and make good in their case, and in their case only, a misfortune not caused by their public service, and which is shared by enormous masses of their countrymen? That request, I do not know what you would call it, would run inevitably through the whole Government service, it would run through the railway service, through the municipal service, and would run into figures which I have no means of estimating. I have taken the trouble to see what would be the immediate result on our own Estimates. It would add to our liabilities a capital sum of certainly not less than £50,000,000."—[Official Report, 13th Feb., Cols. 455–6, Vol. 125.]
Some hon. Members said that bargain was not complete. I do not know what was meant by that. The arrangement with the police when they entered the Force was that they should receive a certain sum when they retired. I am old enough to remember perfectly well the
cost of living in the years between 1870 and 1880, and I remember the disastrous year of 1879, which marked the commencement of the period which ruined a great number of farmers in this country, and landlords too, and which during the next ten years brought down the cost of living by a very large sum. Did anybody ever say that because in 1870 a pension was granted and the cost of living in 1880 had gone down the pension should be reduced? I never heard of anything of the kind, and if anybody had said it, would the pensioners have agreed? Everyone knows that the pensions were given on the understanding that a fixed sum would be paid. There is a large number of people who have saved money, and who have nobody in particular to whom to leave it. Their savings have not been very great. They have gone to an insurance office and bought an annuity. If they went to the insurance office and said, "It is true that we bought an annuity of £100 ten years ago, but the cost of living is now so much greater than it was then, therefore you must increase the annuity," the insurance officer would say, "The agreement made was that a certain sum per year should be given to you, and you have got to abide by that agreement."
I have attacked the Government very strongly on many occasions when I thought they were wrong; but that is no reason, when they happen to be doing the right thing, why I should attack them again. If hon. Members read the City intelligence of to-day they will see that the Funding Loan which was issued last year at 80 stands at 71, that is, a discount of 9 per cent., roughly speaking, within seven months, and the 5 per Cent. Loan which was issued at 95 some two or three years ago is now 88¾ per cent. The Bank rate, which is now 6 per cent., in all probability in a few days will be 7 per cent. We have £ 1,100,000,000 Treasury bills which will have to be renewed from time to time as they expire. We have already exceeded the expenditure estimated last April by £220,000,000, which is equal to the whole expenditure in the most extravagant year we had in the history of the country before the War. It is evident, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if we were to agree to give this sum now we should have to agree with the whole Civil Service, the railway service, the Post Office, and all those
people who have entered into a bargain to receive a certain pension when a certain contingency arises. The hon. Member who spoke a short time ago spoke about the inability of the pensioners to earn money. Just consider for a moment the difference in the position of the police pensioner and the Civil Service pensioner, the railway pensioner and the Post Office pensioner.

Sir J. REMNANT: Are they all contributors?

Sir F. BANBURY: They are all contributors,

Mr. S. WALSH: And the Education pensioners?

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not include them. The civil servant, I believe, retires not before 60 years of age and he must retire at 65. I think I am right there. But what about the police? They retire at about 45 years of age.

Sir J. REMNANT: No, no!

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and gallant Friend cannot know much about his brief. The police retire after 26 years' service, and if they join the Force at 20 years of age, which is not unusual, they would be 46 years of age on retirement. Let me give an instance of what happened to a policeman who retired. Not so many years ago one of the police in the House, a good fellow whose acquaintance I had, told me that he was about to retire. He was quite a young man, about 45 or between 45 and 50, and he said to me, "I should very much like to be the messenger of a bank." I replied, "Very well." I was then the director of a bank, and I told him that we were only too anxious to get retired policemen into our service as messengers. We at once took this man and paid him full salary. That salary he received in addition to his pension, with rooms, fire and light, and all that sort of thing. There are numbers of pensioners who retire and do that sort of thing. The ease of the policeman is about the worse case my hon. Friend could have brought forward in regard to pensions, because policemen retire so very much earlier than other workers.

Sir J. REMNANT: Does the right hon. Baronet know the average age at which they retire?

Sir F. BANBURY: After 26 years' service.

Sir J. REMNANT: Far more than that.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Home Secretary is here, and if I am wrong he will contradict me. Let us get the information. I think my statement that the average age is between 45 and 50 will be found to be correct. I took the trouble to ascertain this afternoon what was the service that qualified a man for a pension, and I was informed it was 26 years' service. Therefore, these particular men, as far as the matter of hardship goes, are really in a better position than the majority of pensioners whose case has not yet been dealt with. One speaker to-night said that a pension was given in order to prevent people doing anything when they came to a certain age, and ho illustrated what took place at the end of last Session when all the rules of the House were suspended and the Old Age Pension was increased from 5s. to 10s. a week No one could ever have supposed that even in pre-war days anyone could have lived on 5s. a week; neither is it very likely that in these days people could live on 10s. a week. Therefore, the idea that pensions were given in order to provide something on which a person could live in absolute comfort without doing any work, is erroneous. Pensions were always given as something which would be regarded as a regular sum of money to be received and which, with whatever else the recipients might have saved or could earn, would enable them to live in comparative comfort. We really must make up our minds that we have got to suffer for the War [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members opposite are very careful not to suffer for it, but the majority of people have, unfortunately, got to suffer on account of the War, and we must all make up our minds that if we are to restore this country to the prosperity which it had before the War, instead of coming down here and asking that the burdens which we have all got to share shall be passed on from our shoulders to somebody else's shoulders, we must all turn to and do our best, and put up with hardships—not to work for 48 hours at a stretch or nonsense like that, but for 12 hours, or 14 would be better still, in order to
assist those of us who desire to see our country prosperous as it was before the War.
I happened only to-day to meet a gentleman, in connection with the work of the small Committee on which I have been asked by the Government to serve, dealing with the question of Austrian debts to British firms, and he said "The Germans are determined to get their country back to the same state commercially as it was in before the War, and all of them, from the smallest boy in the workshops to the master of the workshops, are working as many hours and as hard as they can." These are the people we have got to compete with. I am not arguing against the police, but that we cannot do these things, however good they are, and that we have got to make up our minds about it. We shall have to exercise a litle moral courage. Do not suppose I am doing what I am doing because I like it. I do it from a sense of duty. I may be wrong, but I do not think I am, and I feel so strongly that if this great country is to be restored to its pristine greatness—and I am certain that everybody wants to see that—we have got to do it by putting aside all sentimentality, by acknowledging that we have had a rough time and are going to have a rougher still, and we have to face it like Englishmen, and if we do that I think we shall come through, but if we allow ourselves to be governed, as I should like to be governed, by sentiment and by desiring to make everything pleasant for everybody, ruin stares us in the face.

Mr. MOLES: The Home Secretary has not had a happy moment since this Debate began until the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken rose, and I think the House will also agree that, however sure the right hon. Baronet may be on finance—and we all bow to him in that respect—none of us would like to follow him as an authority on Biblical history. I was fearful, indeed, lest he should break down, but the promptings of his friends saved him. I should like to suggest that he should carry his Biblical researches a little further. He would find this passage: "The labourer is worthy of his hire." We all suffer from the War. That is true, but I hope the right hon. Baronet does not suggest that some of us
are to be ruined by the War. Let there he due proportion in the bearing of this burden. I listened to the Home Secretary in the course of this Debate. He was genial, almost benevolent, when we began, but as speaker after speaker made appeal he became frigid and repellant. We have all to go back home bearing this message—"Codlin is your friend—not Short." I want to put in a word rather for the Irish police pensioners, and I am perfectly certain I shall carry the right hon. Baronet in this matter. I listened with amazement to an hon. Friend above the Gangway declaring that a pensioner in his town had only a guinea a week. In the present condition of living, if that be his sole revenue, I think it is a disgrace to the country. Then we were told that in Manchester it was a guinea and £1 8s. 8d. Yet the pension which these hon. Gentlemen think niggardly and mean in the last degree represented more than the pay of the Irish policeman within recent years. There are 5,000 old pensioners in Ireland to-day maintaining an existence on 16s. a week, the purchasing power of which is 6s.
When the right hon. Baronet makes an appeal to us to suffer for the war, I would suggest that it is pushing suffering a little too far. References have been made to a bargain. What bargain is there that has not been broken? And is the Home Secretary going to take refuge behind the letter of the law and violate its spirit? Surely not. I do not think that attitude is creditable to him at all. It is for the Irish police pensioner that I desire to speak more particularly. The case we have made has been admitted from the Treasury Bench. In response to a question which I addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland not so long ago, he admitted that the case of the Irish police pensioner was peculiar and exceptional. The average age of retirement in Ireland exceeds 60 years, and, leading the kind of life a policeman has to lead in Ireland, I am sure the right hon. Baronet would not give him employment as a porter, and when he told us of a policeman who was a bank messenger I expected him to go on and tell us that one of these days he would be a bank director. I think I am entitled to make this appeal on behalf of the Irish police pensioner, that the Chiei Secretary having admitted that this claim was peculiar and exceptional, and that pledge having been agreed to, the
Treasury should implement its bargain. I support this appeal, and in these days when crime is very widespread, it is the police that stand between society and chaos in a great many cases. They venture their lives and limbs in a way the ordinary employee does not. They render a kind of service which the ordinary employee does not. Above everything else, as the State makes an appeal to the private employer to treat his employee with justice and generosity, let it show him an example! I support this Motion, and if it is carried to a Division I shall vote for it.

Dr. MURRAY: As a Scottish Member I desire to say just one word in connection with this subject as it relates to Scotland. Before doing so may I say that I owe a little reparation to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced this Motion. When the Old Age Pensions Bill was before the House the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised this question, and I said that he tried in this way to torpedo the Old Age Pensions Bill. I ought not to have said so. I desire to express my regret, and to withdraw the observation. The case for the police in Scotland is exactly the same as the case for the police in England. A fortnight ago I happened to be in the neighbouring borough of Paisley. Some representatives of the policemen in Glasgow came to see me to put their case before me. Perhaps the House is aware that the bulk of the policemen in Glasgow are Highlanders; indeed, I think that is so in most towns in Scotland. Possibly the reason is that the bump of law or order is more highly developed with the Highlander than with others. The special case in Glasgow is that there is a police pensions fund, and, I am told, that the Corporation are quite willing that the extra allowance should be paid out of this if the Law Officers of the Crown permit it, and it will cost little, if anything, to the State. The Secretary for Scotland wrote to the Corporation to the effect that it was not in their power to pay out this money; therefore the pensioners engaged by the Glasgow Corporation have to go without the extra pension. If legislation or a short Bill be necessary, I think the Scottish Office might consider the special case of the policemen under the Glasgow Corporation, and do them this justice, which can be done cheaper than in any other city in the country.

HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! divide!"

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): This has been a very interesting debate. I quite agree with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Northumberland, that it has disclosed complete unanimity so far as the feeling of this House has been expressed in the speeches upon the question raised in the Motion. This is not the first time that this question has been considered. It is raised to-night, it is true, in the name of the police, but it is a far wider question than that of the police alone. It is perfectly true, as has been put, that the police have no real legal right to any alteration in the rate of their existing pensions. That applies to almost every other kind of pensioner, whose pension, as pre-War fixed, is smaller than is requisite for the needs of to-day, and who is, therefore, suffering in consequence. They have no legal right to any change in their pensions. It is obvious that these pensions were not based upon the standard of living, because if that had been the basis of their contract the moment the cost goes down the pension would have to be reduced proportionately to meet the changed circumstances. It only requires a moment's consideration to show anybody that the basis of the contract was a nominal amount and not the mere standard of wage.
I admit that that does not meet the matter, but it prevents anyone getting up and saying the case of the police is special and that their contract is that their pension should be altered. They cannot say that. Those who champion the cause of the police are bound to admit that their case is exactly on the same lines as the Civil Service, the Army, the Navy, the Scottish and Irish police, municipal employés, the English, Scotch and Irish school teachers, and all the others who had their pensions fixed in pre-War times. This is a matter of extreme difficulty. I do not know how many hon. Members have calculated what the cost of this means if carried to its logical conclusion. May I remind the House that one thing is absolutely certain, and it is, if this House decides that measures should be taken to make alteration in the pensions for the police because of a change in the cost of living, and that there is a moral obligation on the people of this country to raise the
pensions of these people, there will be no answer of any sort or description to any other class of pensioner who comes along and demands the same thing.
We must face the facts. If this demand is granted which the police ask for through their champions in this House, we have to face the granting of the same thing to every other class of pensioner. Not only those who are State pensioners, but we shall have to grant the same thing through the rates of corporations and county councils to every municipal pensioner in the country. That is a very considerable burden. It is no pleasant task where one's whole sympathies are with the claimant to have to say, "Really this is impossible,' but sometimes this unpleasant task has to be performed and it is forced upon us In this case, taking the imperial pension for service to the State, rather than the service to municipalities, corporations and county councils, it would be impossible to do it on the most moderate computation under a capital sum of at least £50,000,000 to provide the necessary revenue, assuming that revenue decreases until it disappears altogether. I do not understand the claim which is put forward for a moment. We have certainly calculated on the assumption that as pensioners who are under the old scale die the call upon the State will decrease, and, facing it in that way and taking the whole period, the smallest amount for which it could be done would be the revenue attributable to a capital sum of £50,000,000.

Sir J. REMNANT: That is not much for the great gain that the country gets.

Mr. SHORTT: If everything that is demanded requires a capital sum of £50,000,000, and we are to agree to them all, then Heaven help this country. You have also to consider what is going to be the addition to the rates, and it is bound to be very considerable. I would ask the House to recollect who pays all this. Think of the thousands of people with small fixed incomes, hard put to it, as it is. The burden of this additional taxation would fall very heavily upon them. Therefore, the House will appreciate how extremely difficult a subject it is for any Government to deal with. The Government have given it their most careful consideration. I should not like to say how many questions have been asked on this
subject, how many hon. Members have discussed it with myself, and how many letters one has received. There is no dispute as to the facts. There is no dispute as to the hardships in the case of pensioners, but that they are any greater than those of people with small fixed incomes, I entirely deny. The hardship is the same if the income be small and fixed; it will not expand as prices expand, and the hardship is the same whether they are pensioners or not. One has to consider what can be done in every case. It has been said that the burden of my answer will be that there is a cry for economy. So there is a cry for economy. Every newspaper, every public speaker, is shrieking aloud for economy. The Government are denounced because they do not carry out measures of economy in Government Departments. Government Departments are being cut down ruthlessly. Every day there are people who complain that they have been engaged during the War and are now thrown on the streets without employment. The Departments are being cut down as ruthlessly as they can be. Every possible avenue of economy is being explored by the Government, but if on every hand we are to be forced to enter into new expenditure, it will make the cry for economy absolutely of no avail, and it will make the attempt at real economy absolutely useless. Therefore, as I say, this is a matter of the most extreme difficulty. I appreciate to the full the motives of every hon. Member who has spoken on behalf of so many poor people. Everybody has sympathy for them. I know that sympathy butters no bread, but at any rate it does induce you to face this problem with a desire, if possible, to do all that can be done to satisfy the claims that are made. We have had papers showing the number of pensioners that exist. I may say at once to the House that it would be quite impossible for me to suggest to the Cabinet once again that they should consider the question of giving to every pensioner that exists a proportional or a percentage rate of increase. There is a proportion of those who are in receipt of pensions, who, although they are not as well off as we should like them to be, are still not in the dire distress which has been so pathetically described with regard to some, but that there are some who are in distress there is no doubt. There are
hard cases. This matter, as I have told the House, has been already considered and definitely decided by the Government. Their decision was complete and decisive, and therefore, that being a final decision, I am not in a position to-night to say that anything of necessity can be done.
I am sure the House will appreciate that it is not merely a police question, but is a question dealing with all kinds of other Government servants. It would, therefore, be idle to refer this back again, as has been suggested, to the Desborough Committee, because that committee deals, and can only deal, with the question of police. If you are going to consider this question, you will have to consider the case of every kind of civil servant—a far bigger number than these police, pensioners. You will have to consider the Army and Navy pensioners—a bigger number than the police pensioners. There are all kinds of other pensioners, and you would require a committee for each. But it may be possible—I am not going to say that it is—that the really hard eases might be considered. We have measures of that kind going on at present. The Civil Liability Commissioners are sitting throughout the country, and it might be possible. What the cost of that would be it is difficult to say. The proportion of those who retired on small pensions is, of course, a big one, and they naturally are the oldest. There is no means of telling absolutely definitely, or with any sort of precision, what is the average age of retirement; but to the best of the knowledge I possess, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), although perhaps he understated it a little, was considerably nearer to accuracy than my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir J. REMNANT: I said that the right hon. Baronet was certainly under the mark; certainly he is if you include Ireland.

Mr. SHORTT: If I am misrepresenting the hon. and gallant Gentleman I am sorry, but he certainly contended that it was considerably higher than it was put by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London.

Sir F. BANBURY: For the police only.

Mr. SHORTT: For the police only, I should very much doubt if the retiring
age was as high as 50; I should say it was under 50. Those who retired some considerable time ago are, of course, not so old as they would be if they had retired at 60 or 65. In Ireland I daresay they may retire a little later. There certainly are hard cases throughout the service. I can tell the House this. I will endeavour to the best of my ability to get such information as I can as to the really hard cases, and see what can be done to relieve them. Of course I am now in a position to say to my colleagues in the Government that the House to-day has shown a degree of unanimity which is seldom seen in this House on any subject Anyone who has listened to the Debate must have been very much struck by the absolute unanimity which existed. I am sorry it has had the evil effect upon my particular countenance which was described by one hon. Member, but I can assure him that my countenance did not in the least represent what my feelings were. The unanimity was complete—that I can represent to my colleagues in the Government, and I am sure I am only speaking what everyone will believe when I say that must have effect upon them. Finance is a question which requires more careful consideration, more thought, and more deliberation before you come to a decision than anything else. I do not wish the House to misunderstand me—I can give no pledge that anything will be done. I can give a pledge that I will inquire into the question of hard cases, to see what they cost in the first place, and how far we can assist them.

Captain REDMOND: That will include Ireland, I presume?

Mr. SHORTT: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and I am sure he will. Then I will sec what can be done to help those hard cases, those cases which have been described as really not able to get proper food and nutriment for their bodies. Those cases are very urgent. I can promise the House no time will be lost. I am sorry I cannot promise more. I am sure the House will appreciate my position and at least give me the chance of seeing if I can do something to carry out that which I see to be the unanimous—I do not think I am overstating it—desire of the House. It may be, I dare say, that there would have been a sufficient
number of Members who would not let the Government be beaten, but in spite of that fact, the feeling of the House is perfectly unanimous. I will do my best as far as possible to remedy, to find some means of remedying, those very difficult and hard cases which have been so eloquently brought forward. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me a chance, at any rate, to do the best I can to meet their evident wishes in this matter.

Sir J. REMNANT: May I put a question? We do not wish in any way to handicap the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this matter. He says he believes the unanimous opinion of the House is in favour of this. Would not the best way be for him to leave the House free to Divide on this, so that he may see by the Division List that it has the absolutely unanimous support of the whole House?

Mr. WATERSON: I think the House realises this Question is not in the least a party matter, and we may feel pleased that it has been raised above any party issue, and that on all sides there has been unanimity of opinion. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City, said that some of us had not known him very long. I want to assure him that, whilst we may not have been Members of the House, there are many men belonging to the working classes who have watched his career for many years and who are not altogether satisfied with his attitude towards democracy. We may not have seen him in the body, but we have known his attitude to wards the working classes. I venture to say that the fight he was prepared to make to-night against helping these pensioners he was not prepared to put up on the Bill known as the County Court Judges Pension Bill. On that no Division was needed, and the right hon. Baronet's lips were not opened on the increase of some Members' salaries from £2,500 to £5,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! no!"] Is the Home Secretary prepared to ask the Government to consider the advisability of granting extra pensions to—

Sir F. BANBURY: May I interrupt the hon. Member? He has referred to
some Bill of which I have not the slightest recollection. I have opposed increases of salaries to Ministers as well as to every other kind of person, but I do not remember the little Bill to which the hon. Member alludes. It is quite impossible to oppose every Bill brought in.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the Home Secretary prepared to ask the Government to consider the grant of some extra pension to men who were due to retire in the early days of the War. but were compelled under the Police Emergency Act to remain in the Service i When that matter was discussed in 1915 it was understood that their case would be taken into consideration, but there is a feeling in the country that that undertaking has not been acted upon. I hope the Home Secretary will give consideration of the case of men who continued to serve and thus stood by the nation in its hour of need, often, it should be remembered, giving up lucrative appointments in order to do so.

Sir J. BUTCHER: We are glad to accept the assurance of the Home Secretary that he is prepared to advise his colleagues in the Government to consider hard cases among these men. May I mention two classes of case which I think especially require attention. The first are ex-Army service men who risked their lives for their country in former wars and are now suffering severe hardship—many being in great poverty. The other class are retired members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police who loyally and courageously served their country in times past under circumstances of great difficulty. Many of them have been unable to obtain employment in Ireland owing to their police service. These men deserve special consideration at our hands, and I hope the Home Secretary will bear their case in mind.

Question put, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable the pensions of all police officers and men retired before the 1st day of April, 1919, should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost of living."

The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 57.

Division No. 19.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gould, James C.
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
O'Grady, Captain James


Armitage, Robert
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Hallas, Eldred
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hanna, George Boyle
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood.
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Haslam, Lewis
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hayday, Arthur
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Betterton, Henry B.
Hirst, G. H.
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Remer, J. R.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hurst, Major Gerald B.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Irving, Dan
Royce, William Stapleton


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Johnson, L. S.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bromfield, William
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, East)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Kidd, James
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bruton, Sir James
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Lawson, John J.
Spencer, George A.


Cape, Thomas
Lloyd, George Butler
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Casey, T. W.
Lunn, William
Stanton, Charles B.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Swan, J. E. C.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lynn, R. J.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cope, Major Wm.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Tootill, Robert


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Mitchell, William Lane
Walton, J. (York, w. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Moles, Thomas
Waterson, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Entwistle, Major C F.
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Gilbert, James Daniel
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Sir J. Remnant and Mr. Seddon.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Baird, John Lawrence
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Baldwin, Stanley
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Coats, Sir Stuart
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Courthope, Major George L.
Macmaster, Donald
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Maison, Major John Elsdale
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Foreman, Henry
Morison, Thomas Brash
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Forrest, Walter
Morrison, Hugh
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mount, William Arthur
Whitla, Sir William


Gange, E. Stanley
Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur
Younger, Sir George


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Newton, Major Harry Kottingham



Grant, James A.
Parker, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Hohler, Gerald Fiztroy
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the pensions of all police officers and men retired before the 1st day of April, 1919, should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost of living.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Postponed proceeding on resumed Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not know whether the Government intend to go on with this Bill now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] A defeat is always an unpleasant matter, but a Government defeat by two to one is a serious matter, and if the Government insist on going on with this matter I trust that at any rate before to-morrow we may have a statement as to what they propose to do on the question of pensions. When the Debate was interrupted I was explaining that the Labour party at any rate regarded this Bill as a piece of hypocrisy on the part of the Government. It is a Bill to make unemployment tolerable and not to do away with unemployment. Perhaps instead of continuing this Debate it would be better to move the adjournment so as to get a statement. As the Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) is present, I think it better to move the Adjournment so as to get some explanation from him.

Mr. SPEAKER: I could not accept that Motion, as it has been decided to go on after 11 o'clock.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is a Bill to satisfy the conscience of the people of this country by giving the unemployed a grant of 15s. a week, which is the equivalent of 6s. 6d. before the war. It is devised not so much to provide a living for the unemployed as to be a preventive of the red flag education. It is a sop to the consciences of those people before the existence of unemployment results in revolution. We on these Benches regarded unemployment as a thing that is wrong in itself, and it is not our business to make it any more tolerable or possible by a system of insurance, whether that insurance be contributory or otherwise. Further, it is on unemployment that the whole of the present system of industry exists. Without unemployment the worker would get the full reward of his labour instead of being exploited for a small wage. It is the presence of the unemployed all round who create the bad wage system of to-day and drive down wages. It is true that during the War we have not had that bad system in operation. During the War the iron law of wages has not been operative, there being two jobs almost after one man instead of two men after one job. Consequently, during the War, as the cost of living rose the wages of the workers rose
too; indeed, they would have received much higher wages than they did receive had there not been legislation passed preventing strikes and trade union disputes.
The War was over one and a quarter years ago. Since then the cost of living has gone on rising. It has risen from about 120 per cent. above pre-war level to about 136 per cent above pre-war level. Those are the official figures. While that post-war increase in the cost of living has been going on wages have not gone up to match that increase in the cost of living. The reason of that is obvious. After the War was over the rush of jobs ceased, the unemployed were recreated, and the presence of the unemployed prevented the wages rising. Unemployment is at the root of the whole of the social evils of the day and at the root of the capitalist system, and any legislation must deal with it from the point of view of destroying unemployment rather than of making unemployment tolerable. Employment depends upon the primary trades getting access to their raw materials. If the agricultural trade, or the building trade, or the mining and quarrying trade, all starting productive work, could get free access at any time to their raw materials—the land, nature—they would start the processes of manufacture, and all the other trades would find their natural opportunity for employment in completing the processes of manufacture. The elementary facts that we came to consider in dealing with the unemployed problem are roughly these: The whole of the wealth of the world is created by the productive workers. The position may be illustrated by a pillar composed of the useful, productive workers of the country. On the top of the pillar, weighing it down, are all the idlers, with the community and all those who are doing useless, non-productive work. The productive work is the only sort of employment we want to increase. It is no good putting people on to sweep streets by hand if it can be done more quickly by machine. It is no good putting people to dig up fields with spades instead of using ploughs. That would be adding a useful load on top of the productive worker. It is no use saying, as our tariff reform friends suggest, when they see a market gardener out of a job, "My poor friend. If you will only let us put a thumping tariff on bananas you will be able to build greenhouses
and grow bananas and sell them at a guinea a piece." That is only adding to the load on top. It is better that we should get bananas from those countries where they are produced most economically, and pay for them with the goods which we produce most economically in this country.
Every sort of useful work you can conceive, consists in the conversion of land and raw materials into the finished article. Every sort of useful work consists in the application, in the first place, of labour to land and raw material. For instance, in the work with which my name is, and with which my cash was associated, useful productive work converts the raw clay of Cornwall and Devon into cups and saucers, and the very best cups and saucers they are, too. All the schemes that are brought forward by hon. Members opposite, all the exhortations to workmen to work harder and to produce more, are falsified because the Government does nothing to make it easier for the worker to get access to the raw materials. If you are going to do anything to deal with the unemployment problem, you have got to work for that which is essential to all employment, which is vital to industry, easy of access. We want to break down the barriers which keep a man from his job. There, on one side of a brick wall, is a man able, anxious, and willing to work, and on the other side is the raw material with which alone he can work, and you say that that man must have a dole to keep him unemployed. We say "Nothing of the sort." We want to break down that barrier which keeps the man from his work and throw open nature to the use of man, so that we can start work and industry in this country. I know very well that most Members of this House are interested in land. I am myself, and I know very well that a man who owns land will fight for it more than for anything else on earth, but we have got to break that wall down, even if land monopoly is fixed on the top of the wall, even though every vested interest and every private interest in the country is founded upon the ownership of raw materials. We have got to devise some method which will make land cheaper, and nothing else matters. Every scheme for buying up the land which does not make land cheaper is not going to help the unemployed problem. We shall talk about unemployment more in future,
because it will come up over and over again in the coming Sessions of Parliament. Suppose, when thousands are out of work and there are hard times everywhere, we sent a deputation to the High Court of Heaven to represent there the poverty and misery on earth, due to people not being able to find employment, what answer should we get? "Are your lands all in use, are your mines worked out, are there no natural opportunities for the employment of labour?" What can we ask Him for that He has not already given us in abundance? He has given us this globe stocked with raw materials ready to our hand, and He has given to us alone of the brute creation power to work up these raw materials into things we want to use. There seems to be scarcity. If there is want, if there are thousands of people tramping our streets in search of work, is it not because what He intended for all has been made the private property of a few? It is not merely in the interests of the people who are unemployed that I ask you to break that wall down and set free the land of this country, it is in the interests of all the working classes in this country, those who are at work as well as those who are not. The unemployed man cuts the throat of the man who is at work, and when you think of all the evils that come from our existing social system, from the unjust basis upon which it is built up, I ask all men who really have justice and humanity at heart to back up the only possible solution of the unemployed problem, and that is to throw open the land of England to the people of England.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask, on a point of Order, this question? A Motion was made for the Adjournment of the Debate on the ground of the defeat of the Government, after a defence made by the principal Secretary of State and with the Government whips put on for the Division. I understood you, Sir, to decline to accept that Motion, and I wish to submit to you that it is not an abuse of the Rules of the House, which I under stand to be the ground—

Mr. SPEAKER: No. The hon. and gallant Member misunderstood me. The House decided early this afternoon to go on with this Bill after eleven o'clock.

Captain BENN: On the point of Order. Does the Motion to suspend the Eleven
o'clock Rule preclude the House, in face of the very grave event of the defeat of the Government, from adjourning this Debate in order to give the Government time to consider what course to take? Do I understand you to say we are precluded by the Motion passed at a quarter to four?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member, perhaps, has exaggerated the gravity of the situation.

Mr. T. SHAW: I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to two details in regard to the trade to which I have the privilege to belong. First of all, take the provisions that women are to be dealt with differently from men. In Lancashire weaving sheds, for half a century now, at least, women and men have worked side by side at the same piece-rate, and as equals in every possible respect. We shall offer the strongest possible opposition to any differentiation being made between the sexes. There is a second point. Our difficulty in the Lancashire weaving sheds is not unemployment in the ordinary sense at all. As a rule, a weaving shed will be run pretty well all the year round, but we have a problem quite as serious to our people as the problem affecting any other trade, and of a different type, and for which this Bill makes no provision at all. We have the problem of under-employment. A weaver may have four looms. Slackness of trade comes round which in almost every trade would stop the works for a time. It does not stop the weaving shed, but it may stop one, two, and even three of the looms of the weaver. This Bill does nothing to alleviate a position like that, which is quite as serious in a financial sense to the people employed as is the position of the builder who may be unemployed for a week or two. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully take into account the two points I have mentioned, namely, the equal treatment of women and the question of underemployment.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I ought at once to make my acknowledgment to a very large number of Members of the House who have taken part in the discussion this evening. Many very interesting issues have been raised, and I do not think there has been a single speech from which
I have not been able to learn something which will be of service in the course of discussions in Committee. The largest number of points which have been mooted have been Committee questions rather than Second Beading ones, but there are certainly one or two which go to the very root principle of this measure. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Colonel Wedgwood) has raised a question of that description. He thinks this is all wrong, and that it is dealing with a salve or palliative for unemployment. I well recognise the hon. and gallant Gentleman's courage, which has been proved in more arenas than one, but I do not think he would be quite willing to go to his constituents and suggest that unemployment insurance should be entirely done away with, until at least he sees something else to put in its place. It is all very well to talk about the necessity of providing employment, but can you always be sure that you will be able to offer every man employment, even under the highly regulated scheme with which my hon. and gallant Friend was concerned in South Africa. I am well familiar with it, seeing that this is the second occasion on which I have listened to a full description of it. But all that does not satisfy the British working man when you suggest that you have another panacea by which, in all stages of his career, you will be able to offer him employment. My hon. and gallant Friend went into the description of a certain strike he knew, from which he drew the inference that if you could only have put the workmen in touch with raw material the whole situation was solved. Let me describe a strike of far more recent memory—the strike of moulders, which lasted for twenty weeks, and which was so disastrous to the whole of the country at the very moment when our country had turned the corner, and our commerce was going strongly from our shores. Orders were thick in our shops. They could not be executed. Everybody was eager—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You would not have had no strike of moulders if they had been receiving the full reward of their labour.

Sir R. HORNE: The moulders and their brethren took their case to the Arbitration Court. An award was given that was accepted by their brethren, and
the moulders were urged by their brethren to accept it. They took their own line for 20 weeks, and then went back to work on the award they could have had 20 weeks before. Everyone was eager at the beginning to put them into touch with the raw material of their labour. What was the result of the strike? That tens of thousands of people were out of work, and could not find employment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They would not get any relief under your Bill?

Sir R. HORNE: People put out of work by the moulders' strike would get relief tinder this Bill. That is the point I wish to drive home. A strike of this nature destroys the only means by which you can remedy unemployment. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) contended—and I think this was the only point of principle with which he dealt with—that this scheme would be upon a non-contributory rather than upon a contributory basis. But he took the ground from his argument by one of the earlier passages of his speech; where he suggested that the dole that had been given under the Unemployment Donation Scheme had been a detriment to the people of this country. The two parts of his speech do not hang together. Either the first part was right, and the second part wrong, or else we were bound to accept his view that all the troubles concerned in industry, employers, workmen, and the State, are bound to play their part in furnishing a remedy for unemployment. Then there was the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). He urged that the scheme ought to proceed upon a plan for putting the whole of the arrangements in the hands of the approved societies. I really do not agree with his general arguments. There is only one of them that I will deal with now, and I think it is conclusive against his suggestion. He says that the approved societies have managed the whole matter of unemployment insurance. I wish to repeat that you can only deal with that if you have a mechanism by which you can test whether a man is able to obtain suitable employment or not. That is essential, otherwise you will be malingering to an extent scarcely conceivable. [An HON. MEMBER: "On 15s. a week! It costs 20s. 6d. to keep a pauper."]

Mr. SPENCER: Is the right hon. Gentleman serious. The amount is not an errand boy's wage.

Sir R. HORNE: The point I wish to thresh out is the proposal to put the whole of this machinery in the hands of the approved societies. If you are going to test whether a man has suitable employment or not you must have machinery for the purpose. How do you do it now? You have a series of employment exchanges, and they receive notices from the various employers as to the vacancies they have to offer. Under my hon. Friend's scheme the employer would have to notify his vacancies to over 100 approved societies, that is supposing they were able to put up the necessary machinery for testing this question of unemployment. No employer in the country would think of doing anything of the kind. At present he notifies his vacancies to a trade union with which he is in touch and they cover the whole of his employés, and he is in touch with them daily. He says that he has a particular vacancy and he asks can they deal with it. Sometimes he also intimates his vacancies to the employment exchanges but to ask employers to notify their vacancies to over 100 societies—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Why cannot the arrangement with the exchanges go on, and every man get a certificate from the employment exchange saying that he is out of working. He can then take his certificate to the society and get his benefit.

Sir R. HORNE: As soon as my hon. Friend suggests that, then the whole basis of his proposal disappears. His idea is to obtain economy, but instead of that he keeps the whole of the present machinery in existence and proposes some other machinery to go in return.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is the same machinery.

Sir R. HORNE: It is the same machinery to which is added a third party. Whatever can be said in favour of any other proposal urged this afternoon, there is nothing to be said in favour of a principle which is going to turn over to bodies who have had no experience a duty which has been well performed by the trade unions and the employment exchanges, and which involves adding another
machine which must cause some delay, and so far from producing economy you are only going to have extra expense.
I pass from these considerations to a very important question which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon (Sir Allan Smith). I am perfectly certain that everyone who listened to him realised that there had been added to the House a Member with a supreme knowledge of the questions which are at issue between capital and labour. He was dealing with the problem of contracting out, and he put some very pertinent questions as to the contribution which was to be made by the State to organisations which contracted out. I think he misapprehended at least one part of the scheme. He suggested that a trade union was going to obtain more for dealing with its members who were receiving benefit than were the societies under a special scheme. That is perfectly true, but it is also perfectly proper in accordance with the conditions of the scheme. The State may not merely be paying 2d. per man in connection with the trade union scheme, but may also to receiving out of the 6d. which the employer and the workman contribute a considerable contribution towards the deficiencies which arise from other trades. Under the special scheme with which he was dealing, on the other hand, no contribution comes to the State at all. The special scheme takes away the whole of the men's contribution and the whole of the employers' contribution, and, so far from the State receiving any possible subvention from that source, the industry which stands out receives all the advantage of it. Accordingly, the two things are not comparable at all. He made a much more effective point when he dealt with the different trades which may go out, and suggested that some sliding scale might be adopted which would make the worst risks contribute least or receive the largest subvention from the State. That is rather the form in which he puts it. I do not rule out that suggestion. I am perfectly prepared to consider it. I am not sure that it can be adopted exactly in the form in which he put it, but there is a possibility of distinguishing between various industries, and, if it be possible to devise a scheme which can fit into the general framework of the measure which has been presented to the House, I shall be perfectly agree
able to adopt any feasible suggestion which my hon. Friend has to make.

The question of Ireland was raised, and, as usual when Irish questions are raised, we had many eloquent speeches. The hon Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) made a complaint against the Government that they talked with two voices. While on the occasion of the Education Bill, they insisted upon including Ireland, in spite of the fact that a Home Rule Bill was coming forward, on the present occasion they excluded Ireland from the purview of this Bill because a Home Rule Bill was immediately in prospect. If that is the situation, it would undoubtedly exhibit an instance of the Government talking with two voices. But, at least, for the Government to talk with two voices, when it has got many Ministers, is not nearly so striking a fact as that of my hon. Friend, the Member for Falls, talking with two voices. I regret that he is not hero to learn what my reply on this matter is. I listened with great interest to the speech which he made on the education question, when he asseverated that it was the business of Ireland to deal with that matter, and that it ought to be left to Ireland. To-day he talked with the other voice, and insisted that the question of unemployment was the business of the Imperial Parliament, and that Ireland had nothing to do with it. However that may be, I do not want to make any debating point at all on this particular issue. The mind of the Government is quite open on the question of Ireland. We thought that it would be more acceptable to the representatives of Ireland that they should have an opportunity of dealing with what is, after all, obviously a domestic question; but one hears, especially in these days, many strange views from different parts of the House. There are people who used to be the strongest advocates of a rigid Home Rule—some of them have been on their feet in this House this afternoon—but who insist to-day that you cannot carve up labour into several divisions, and that, because trade unions have members in Belfast, Dublin and Cork, as well as in Glasgow, Hull and Newcastle, therefore they must be legislated for by a united Parliament. I am very glad to hear that statement, but it is somewhat unusual.

Mr. LYNN: Not from here.

Sir R. HORNE: I did not say from my hon. Friend, but from some of those who have spoken this afternoon. I entirely agree with that. I think labour in the United Kingdom is one, and cannot be treated separately. But I beg hon. and right hon. Members to recognise how far that carries them; and, when they come to deal with larger questions of political constitutions, I hope they will remember the sentiments to which they have given utterance in the course of this Debate. I turn for a moment to what has been said on the question of women. It is perfectly true that women are given smaller benefit than men under the present scheme. It is equally true that they are to pay a smaller contribution. I do not dissent at all when hon. Members urge that we are in a new atmosphere in the discussion of women's questions. There is no doubt at all that the status of women in this country has enormously changed during the last few years, and that we have to look at all the problems which affect them with totally different eyes from those of a few years ago. But we cannot forget that, up to now—it may change in a very few years; no one, least of all a bachelor, would venture to predict—but at any rate, even still, the main burden of existence falls upon the men of the country, and in ordinary circumstances men have more obligations to meet. On that broad issue I am quite prepared to defend the differentiation which is made under this Bill in regard to both the rates of benefit and the rates of contribution which women on the one hand are given and on the other are to pay.
The last question to which I venture to address myself is that of the amount of benefit. I should not enter into any controversy with any person who says that 15s. is not a great amount of benefit in these days; but I do not at all speak in the same way as my hon. Friends who talked rather slightingly of the amount of that benefit. The point of it is that we cannot give more upon the present basis of contributions, and if you are to give more, you will have to raise the amount of contribution, and at the moment I do not think that is feasible. Fifteen shillings, after all, is something, and I would venture to remind the House of a somewhat pregnant fact. I have already talked of a strike in Glasgow of twenty weeks. I do not think I am wrong if I
say that during all those twenty weeks the men on strike did not have more than fifteen shillings and in some of the weeks they did not have so much, so that it is perfectly evident that fifteen shillings is at least a help.

Mr. SWAN: The point we subjected was about malingering. We know that fifteen shillings may be something, but it is not enough to enable a labouring man to maintain himself and his family when it takes twenty shillings to maintain a pauper.

Sir R. HORNE: I will not split hairs with the hon. Member. If it does not encourage malingering at least it stiffens the courage. What I have to say about it is that it does afford a help, and a substantial help in time of trouble, and nobody is going to despise it. While I do not say that it is a kind and generous contribution to the upkeep of a man's home, it is something which at least he prizes, and upon which, to a certain extent in adverse circumstances, he succeeds in getting along. I do not for a moment pretend that this Bill is the last word in the amount of benefit which is going to be derived from unemployment insurance. I hope with all my heart that it will be greatly extended in the future and that some successor in my Office will be able to build higher and better than I.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I am sure that every Member sitting for an industrial constituency will agree that no subject of greater importance has been discussed this Session than the Bill before us. Probably we shall disagree as to the adequacy of the measure. If there is one subject on which the Members on the Front Bench are united and on which they have spoken with one voice it is as to the need of increased production, if we are to improve our financial position. If we are to recover our position in the industrial world we know that we must have the maximum amount of production. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, judged by that standard, will this Bill stand the test? Does he think that this offer of 15s. per week will give that stimulus to increased production which the Government say is the one thing needed to save the country at the present time? The Secretary of State for War earlier this week, in introducing Estimates, explained that although the figures might appear large in reality,
the Estimates for the coming year of the normal expenditure were really less than the expenditure of the year 1913–14. How did he get at that? He told the House that as the pound sterling in 1913–14 was to-day only worth 8s. 10d., so the normal expenditure of 28 millions on the British Army in the year would really to-day represent 63 millions, and he took credit to himself that he was only now asking for 55 millions. If that is sound finance for the Secretary of State for War it should be equally sound finance for the Minister of Labour, and if the pound in 1913–14 is now worth only 8s. 10d. then the 15s. offered by this Bill is not worth even 7s., so that the effect of the Bill is to establish an unemployment benefit relatively of less value than that provided in the Bill introduced some years ago. And that is the inducement which the Government hold out for increased production and effectiveness; less than that required in pre-war days. Looking at it from an industrial point of view, from the point of view of the whole community as an economical factor, anything that can be done to increase output is well worth the extra financial cost it may involve either on the State or on the industry. We know full well that Labour, rightly or wrongly, is afraid of exerting itself to the utmost, because if it pours out increased production to-day it may be to starve to-morrow. I say that an offer of 15s. a week will not remove that fear, and consequently if you really want increased production, looking at it purely from an economic standpoint, it would pay us over and over again to give Labour a measure of unemployment benefit so as to get that maximum output for which the world is clamouring. We know that the demand for house building will keep labour occupied for years to come, but because of the bitter experience of the past, when the bricklayers' labourer because of over-production was compelled to walk the streets for long periods, he is naturally cautious today. But I say it would pay us from the house building point of view alone to give a very liberal measure of unemployment benefit so as to secure the maximum output. In the district where I come from and in the industry with which I am connected—the steel industry—the whole world is clamouring for output.
We can get almost any price we like if we will only deliver the goods. America and Germany are out of the question. We have the whole world market at our feet and our manufacturers are refusing orders because they cannot increase the production to meet the demand. Surely it would pay us, from a purely trade and business point of view, to give such a liberal measure of unemployment benefit as would induce workers in every industry to increase their output to its maximum capacity and enable us to take advantage of the world's markets while at our feet. Therefore, apart from the sectional interests of labour or of capital and in the interests of the community as a whole, it would pay us to do this. Surely to-day. when trade is booming and profits are large, is a time when industry will stand this extra charge. The Minister for Labour declared that 15s. was the maximum that could be paid on the present basis of contribution. But I submit that industry to-day, in the present flourishing condition of trade, could stand more than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. It would pay industry to stand the burden; it would pay the State also. There is one other point I should like to mention. This Bill is practically on the same lines as the last in regard to the payment of unemployment benefit. It is not until seven days have elapsed that the man is entitled to benefit. I submit that there you have a real hardship. A man has to be out of work for seven days and not until then can he draw the unemployment benefit. He gets nothing in respect of these seven days. I suggest that if the measure could be so modified as to allow the man at the end of seven days out of work to draw the benefit as from the first day it would be a very great help. Owing to difficulties of transport, over which the men have no control, in our particular districts there are stocks representing thousands and thousands of tons.
What is the result? The mill can turn out 5,000 tons of steel a week, but owing to lack of transport they only turn out 3,000, because the men say, "If we work our utmost and turn out 5,000 tons a week the railway facilities are only such that they can deal with 15,000 tons a month. Therefore we will accommodate our labour to that which the transport system can carry." The consequence is that you get a reduced amount of production.
That is what is happening in the North-East district, whereas if the men were guaranteed unemployment benefit if they happened to stand idle a week, they would not reduce their ouput. They say, "It does not matter. We will produce 5,000 tons, because we shall have unemployment benefit if we stand idle." As things are they naturally say, "The railway companies can only handle three-quarters of what we can turn out of our mills, and we will reduce our output accordingly, otherwise we shall be out of work, and get no unemployment benefit. If you really want to increase production you want to give unemployment benefit as from the first pay after seven days have passed and not wait until the second week has begun. With regard to those who are thrown out el work in allied industries, take the moulders' strike. It is illogical that because of the moulders' of any other strike the labourers in an engineering foundry thrown out of work through the strike should get pay and the labourers in the foundry itself be denied unemployment benefit. The Minister said even if you proposed to include those of a similar trade it would be illogical, but the present position is illogical, and it would be more humane and more in keeping with the spirit of the times if he allowed modifications in Committee so as to include those of the same trade when the labourers themselves were not parties to the strike. Therefore, I urge that in the interests not of any section, but of production, in the interests of increased output, and of the community as a whole, the Minister should consider an increase in the rates, and the industry can well afford to pay, and an increase in the unemployment benefit so that we can get a sum allotted to the workmen which will be an adequate stand-by when work happens to fail.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I realise that my Amendment does not find the favour I hoped, owing to the fault of its exponent and not on the merits of the Amendment. That being so, I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: It would be unfortunate on a Debate on a measure like this if it were not emphasised that legislation of this description is not of a character which will solve the problem with which
we are dealing; but, I suppose, pending the time when we can give it fuller consideration, something in the nature of ambulance work is necessary. I rather gathered that it is from that standpoint that the Minister is approaching this question. Evidently he views the situation somewhat seriously from the standpoint of unemployment being a real evil, because it is now proposed to extend this scheme of insurance to practically all trades and industries. The problem of unemployment is a very serious one in the lives of men who have to experience it. Is it possible to have a little fuller information in regard to the industry of agriculture? If unemployment is a very serious problem to the workers in other industries, is it any less serious to a man or woman who is engaged in agriculture? I am rather surprised to find that in all this fresh labour legislation which has been brought forward agriculture is being excluded. I fully recognise that agriculture may be on a different footing from other industries, and there may be a difficulty in bringing them within the scope of any general measure.

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be delighted to be pressed to put agriculture into the Bill.

Mr. SMITH: There is one difficulty that I can see, so far as agriculture is concerned, in bringing them into a general measure of this description, namely, the very low rate of wages that is earned in the industry and the low incidence of unemployment in comparison with other industries; but the position is none the less serious to those who have to suffer by it, even if their number may be small in comparison with the total employed in other industries. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) suggested that it might be better to have this question of unemployment insurance dealt with from the standpoint of a non-contributory scheme. In that case agriculture could very easily be catered for because the difficulty of the low wages and the low incidence of unemployment would cease to have the same significance as under a scheme where the workers are called upon to contribute. The difficulty of the workers in agriculture during the years immediately ahead will be greater than in the past. It is estimated by the Ministry of Health that the rents of the new houses that ultimately will be built in the agricultural areas, even when
the seven years have elapsed, will not be less than 14s. per week. If people who are unemployed have the liability of 14s. a week hanging over their heads, their position will be very serious. I suggest the advisability of giving this point further consideration, so that the position of the agricultural worker may be met, and having due regard to the smallness of his wage as well as the low incidence of unemployment that obtains in the industry.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Having listened to the Debate on both sides, I am confused as to what to do in the Lobby. So far as I can see, and a number of hon. Members will agree with me, when one introduces any form of unemployment dole, one is giving a bribe to idleness. That is an intensely unpopular thing to say. It is the sort of thing that a number of Members would refrain from saying on an election platform, but it is a fact. The real incentive to work is the desire to get something. There are or there have been hon. Members in this House who have walked through the Lobbies again and again with the desire to get, possibly, a thing like a baronetcy. They all work with an idea of getting something. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I am asked for a confession. I want nothing but a clear conscience and the fact of being able to speak fearlessly in this House and on public platforms.
But I find myself now in a difficult position. I have been a labourer, and though there are many hon. Members on the Benches above the Gangway who have laboured, too, I do say, in all seriousness, I appreciate the point of view of men who cannot make the two ends meet. But if you are going to legislate to give all able-bodied men money for doing nothing, you will eventually find that the meaner the intelligence and the less the ability, the less incentive there exists to get work and the more men will say, "If I get thirty shillings a week for doing nothing, what is the good of doing anything?" It is not giving an unemployment dole to workmen that I want to see. I would rather see the Minister of Labour bringing his intelligence to bear on some legislative measure by which the children and the women would be provided for among the labouring classes and those classes who are
unable to set by any sum to keep them through periods of unemployment. In introducing unemployment doles, we are introducing a pernicious system. It is a concession by the Government to the Labour vote. The Government appreciate that the Labour vote is something to be considered. I cannot think that they are doing any good to the country or to industry by making a dole of this description. If they want to do it they should do it fairly and generously and not by making a dole of 15s. a week, which is equal approximately to 6s. 8d. of pre-war days. An hon. Member has said "why not make it 30s. a week?" If you are going to have by-elections during the next six months why not make it £6 a week and be sure of the Labour vote? It is unsound in principle.
The Coalition Government may have to fight Labour at the polls within the next six months, or possibly the next twelve months. What will Labour do? If Labour came on the Treasury Bench to-morrow would they run this country or this Empire for the men who do not work or cannot work? We must not destroy the incentive to work. It is not giving an incentive to work the nation for our eventual good, but is betraying honest labour to adopt a programme of giving money to people who do not work, and if this is done we shall soon have England largely a nation of people who do not want to work. The right hon. Gentleman said if you tell a man that in the event of his producing too much he will rob himself of his own means of living he will stop working, and therefore you have to tell him, "Do not worry about producing too much, because directly you have produced too much we will proceed to pay you a large sum of money for producing nothing at all." Is that a policy upon which you could run an industrial concern? Could any board of directors say, "Produce as much as you like, because we have made arrangements with our competitors throughout the country that directly you can produce more than we can sell at a profit we will pay you for producing nothing at all"? It is a fallacy. The whole Bill is a fallacy. What we want to do is to say to the working man, "You have to work, and we have to work." [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what we say."] May I say
this to the Labour Members who interjected that remark, that if they could work and produce they will make this the richest country in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "For whom?"] For the men who prove themselves efficient. An opportunity occurred to-day as it has never occurred before, for the industrial classes of any nation of the world to prove that they can work and produce, that despite the wave of insanity passing over the world they have not been carried away by it, and that they cannot only produce but can govern.
If the British working-class do produce, I make bold to say they will govern, and they will govern not only this country, but an Empire which by their own endeavours will be the most successful Empire in the world. The one idea appears to be, however, if I may say so with respect, that we must contribute to all those who do not work, that we must give doles to them. That is a very popular thing on election platforms and in this House, but, so far as I am concerned, I declare that if a General Election were coming to-morrow, I would say with exactly the same conviction that if the Government, in their endeavour to capture the Labour vote, make these concessions, which are not sufficient—for 6s. 8d. a week is not sufficient for any man to live upon, and is only a dole—they are not keeping their promises at the last General Election, when they told the country they were going ahead with a strong policy of reconstruction, and such a policy as would re-establish this country; they are purely and simply living from hand to mouth in the hope that by offending as few people as possible they will make friends of all. The man who has not the courage to make an enemy of another who, he thinks, is an enemy to the cause for which he stands has not either the courage or the ability to govern this country.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have no intention of attempting at this hour to discuss the subject-matter of this Bill. I want to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the importance of the question before us, he will consent to the Committee stage being taken on the floor of the House instead of sending the Bill upstairs to a Standing Committee. I do not think we could have had under discussion this Session a Bill of greater national importance than this Bill, and I
am certain that Members in all parts of the House would like to participate in shaping this Bill in all its stages. I know there are a considerable number of hon. Members who would like to have taken part in the Second Heading Debate, but have been prevented because of the lateness of the hour, and I think the Leader of the House would be meeting the convenience of Members in all parts if he would consent to this Bill being dealt with in its Committee stage on the floor of the House instead of in Grand Committee upstairs.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I quite agree with my right hon. Friend as to the importance of this Bill, and as a Member of the Government I am very much gratified with the reception which it has received from the Labour Benches. Everyone realises, I think, that whatever its defects and however much we may share the hope that later on an unemployment scheme with much larger benefits may be possible, yet I do not believe there is anyone who has ever seriously considered the social condition of this country who does not realise that this Bill is a great departure and is one which will do immense benefit to the classes for which my right hon. Friend speaks. As regards taking the Committee stage on the floor of the House, I would point out to him that that would simply mean a delay in getting the measure through which no one can exactly forecast. We have an immense programme of legislation. It is quite true that this Bill is important, but it is also true that we had the same kind of discussion last year in regard to every Bill which was regarded by any section of the House as of great importance. The Government said then that to adopt the plan of having these Bills taken in Committee of the whole House would mean that it would be quite impossible for us to carry out the programme of legislation on which we appealed to the country and which we are here to carry out. That is true this year. The programme this year is at least as great as that of last year, and even if it were possible for me to meet the request of my right hon. Friend it would mean that neither he nor I would have any idea as to the time when it could become law. I say it is an essential part of the work of this Government and, I believe, of this House of Commons to carry through
the legislation which we have undertaken to carry, and we cannot do that if we revert to the old system of having all these Bills downstairs. We must choose between the method which worked last year or not doing the work which we are here to perform. I am sorry to say, therefore, that on this point it is quite impossible for us to give way. We regard this as vital for the work of the Government. We have come here pledged to carry it through, and without; the continuance of the system adopted last year we cannot carry it through, and therefore I must insist on behalf of the Government in continuing the same process which was adopted last year. But in saying that I would again appeal to my right hon. Friend, and to those behind him, who realise more fully than the rest of the House what this kind of legislation means, to realise that any delay now, even the delay of not getting the Second Reading to-night, would mean a far greater delay in the consideration of this

Bill. We have before us a programme of financial legislation which must be carried through before the 31st March, apart altogether from the general programme of the Government, which I do not believe, I am sorry to say, can be carried out even as it is without some special arrangement. I am sorry to say it. That would mean that if we did not get this Bill to-night—I do not know when we could take the Second Reading—it would not go upstairs, and any delay means a delay which we cannot see the end of in getting carried into law a Bill which I am sure every hon. Member desires to see carried.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill to committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Adamson.]

The House divided: Ayes, 37; Noes, 137.

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[12.20 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Sexton, James


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Glanville, Harold James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayday, Arthur
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Spencer, George A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Lawson, John J.
Swan, J. E. C.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Bromfield, William
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Cape, Thomas
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Redmond, Captain William Archer
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Neil


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Maclean.


Devlin, Joseph
Royce, William Stapleton



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Edge, Captain William
Hurd, Percy A.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Elliot, Capt. waiter E. (Lanark)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Baird, John Lawrence
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Kidd, James


Baldwin, Stanley
Fell, Sir Arthur
King, Commander Henry Douglas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foreman, Henry
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)
Forrest, Walter
Lewis, T. A. (Glam-, Pontypridd)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lort-Williams, J.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Gange, E. Stanley
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Britton, G. B.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Brown, Captain D. C.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lynn, R. J.


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
M'Curdy, Charles Albert


Bruton, Sir James
Glyn, Major Ralph
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Butcher, Sir John George
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Macmaster, Donald


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mallalieu, F. W.


Carr, W. Theodore
Hailwood, Augustine
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)


Casey, T. W.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Matthews, David


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hanna, George Boyle
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.


Clough, Robert
Haslam, Lewis
Moles, Thomas


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Morison, Thomas Brash


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Morrison, Hugh


Cope, Major Wm.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Mount, William Arthur


Courthope, Major George L.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Murchison, C. K.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Howard, Major S. G.
Murray, Lt.-Col. C. D. (Edinburgh)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Neal, Arthur
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Townley, Maximilian G.


O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Seager, Sir William
Waddington, R.


Parker, James
Seddon, J. A.
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Smith, Sir Allan M, (Croydon, South)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Perkins, Walter Frank
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Whitla, Sir William


Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emll W.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Stanton, Charles B.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Steel, Major S. Strang
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Younger, Sir George


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Strauss, Edward Anthony



Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sturrock, J. Leng
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rodger, A. K.
Sugden, W. H.
Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Guest.


Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

It being after Half past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER, adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Twelve o'clock.